The "bring back real filibusters" fallacy (was: Re: OT, re the Massachusetts election) (whatif?)

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

The "bring back real filibusters" fallacy (was: Re: OT, re the Massachusetts election)

Posted on: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:41:27 -0600

raystwo@webtv.net (Raymond Speer) wrote in
news:25608-4B5D91C0-4935@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net :

>
> Ah so, there is at least one encylopedia which assumes that there is no
> longer any endurance contest in a filibusterer. The minority that never
> wants a vote on an issue brings 41 Senators to the floor and stymies a
> vote for all eternity.
>
> Christ on a crutch, that was definitely not the way filibusterers played
> out in the thirties and fiftties and sixties of the twentiieth century.
>

Surprisingly, it seems that even in the heyday of "real" filibusters, they
were *not actually necessary*:

"Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows
Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is
'exactly correct.'

"To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if
Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN
on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind
the 'Quorum Call' logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced
a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

"As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to
monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he
could simply say, 'I suggest the absence of a quorum.'

"The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that
finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start
the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be
required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other
things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"'You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster,' says Dove. 'Delay
in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is
through cloture.'

"And cloture requires 60 votes...

"But what about Strom Thurmond?

"The legendary opponent of Civil Rights famously talked through the night in
an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act. It's the example routinely raised
by proponents of the make-them-talk strategy because it's such a delicious
political image for progressives: the embodiment of racism, literally
standing in the way of the march of morality. It draws a line and forces the
public to choose a side. Democrats, who feel the political winds at their
backs, [remember, this was written in early 2009--DT] want a repeat.

"But if Thurmond's speech wasn't necessary to stall Senate business, why'd he
talk all night?

"'He just wanted to make a point,' says Dove. 'He chose to keep talking.'

"It may have made Thurmond a demon in the eyes of history, but in the South,
his filibuster vaulted him to the legendary status he retains today. He
eventually ran out of gas and Civil Rights proponents carried the vote.

"Yet they succeeded, says Dove, not because Thurmond eventually stopped
talking, but because they already had the votes.

"When the majority doesn't have the votes, it doesn't go well. Since
Thurmond, says Dove, the only time the majority tried to jam a bill through
the Senate without having 60 votes ahead of time ended in failure.

"Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, was majority leader in 1988,
when Democrats controlled 54 seats and wanted to push through campaign
finance reform.

"But Republican minority leader Alan Simpson of Wyoming was easily able to
block it by sitting on the Senate floor and occasionally noting the absence
of a quorum, thwarting a vote.

"'Alan Simpson basically guarded the floor and the other Republicans simply
went home,' says Dove.

"Byrd, fed up and deprived of the spectacle of non-stop-speechifying, ordered
the sergeant-at-arms to arrest Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) and physically carry
him to the Senate floor so he could be counted in a quorum call. Such a move
is within the legal right of a majority leader, but it backfired when the
sergeant-at-arms accidentally injured the 6'6", 235-pound Packwood.

"Byrd and Senate Democrats eventually gave up. 'I don't like to do things on
a win-lose basis. I would rather say that we apparently have prevailed,'
Simpson boasted at the time.

"Dove concurs with Simpson's political scorekeeping. 'It was almost a
farce," says Dove. 'The bottom line is the bill never passed.'..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

(If this was just a memo by Harry Reid, I would take it with more than a
grain of salt. But Dove really does seem to know the Senate rules. Though
he had served on Bob Dole's staff, he was fired by Trent Lott as
parliamentarian when he made some unfavorable rulings on the GOP's attempted
use of reconciliation in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dove )

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]