Harry Reid and the filibuster...or the end of it....

[YardleyLabs]

I say to heck with cloture. If they want to filibuster, let them talk 24/7.

That would be the effect of continuing to consider a bill following failure of a cloture vote. It requires each party to maintain members in the chambers 24/7, not just one. Throughout the process, either side can call for a vote at any time. The other then requests verification of whether a quorum is present, forcing a roll call of members before any vote may be held. That prevents adoption of any action by unanimous consent. We seem to have run out of those courtly gentlemen willing to spend hours at a time reading the collected works of Longfellow while pissing into a jar to avoid leaving the big chamber for the little one. Ahhh, those were the days.

[Roger Perry]

So Harry Reid now wants to revise the Senate rules for passing votes to a "simple majority" (51/49) from a "super majority" (60/40), thereby effectively eliminating the filibuster and rendering the minority party silent.

Great. Just freakin' great.....

So after their "overwhelming victory" last December, the Dems/libs are so panicked about their policies that they need to shut down dissenting voices with a change in procedure....

Granted, there appears to be no ready mandate for this move...but that it's even being discussed in our current financial and economic environment gives me a chill that won't go away....





God help us all regards,

kg

Sort of like:

Republicans 'go nuclear' with vote to ban the filibuster

</EM>
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Monday, 23 May 2005


The US Senate will hold a crucial vote tomorrow, barring a last-minute compromise, on a proposal to ban filibusters of President George Bush's judicial nominations - and, many warn, change the nature of the upper chamber of Congress.

The US Senate will hold a crucial vote tomorrow, barring a last-minute compromise, on a proposal to ban filibusters of President George Bush's judicial nominations - and, many warn, change the nature of the upper chamber of Congress.
Under the rule change, described by many constitutional experts as a potential watershed in more than 200 years of Senate history, a simple majority of just 51 Senators would be required to end debate, instead of the current "super-majority" of 60.
The proposal relates only to judicial nominations, but minority Democrats charge that it is the thin end of a wedge that would ultimately end the filibuster in its entirety. Even in its present form however, the stakes could hardly be higher.
Tomorrow's expected test vote will involve just one nomination, of the Texas state judge Priscilla Owen to the 5th circuit court of appeals, based in New Orleans. Democrats claim she is an extreme conservative, unfitted to so important a post. Republicans contend that, whatever her views, she is entitled to a straight up-or-down vote. But they have only 55 of the 100 Senate seats, not enough to force an end to a filibuster.
Assuming this fate befalls Ms Owen, the Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, is expected to ask Vice-President Dick Cheney, in his role as Senate president, to declare filibusters illegal for federal appeal court and Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Mr Frist would then call a vote to uphold that ruling. This is the "nuclear option", so called because senators warn it will blow relations between the two parties to smithereens.

[kjrice]

We can't even call him Dirty Harry, since it would be disrespectful to Clint Eastwood...Dingy Harry has lost his way. Politics have changed him and it is time for him to go. I look forward to working the phones trying to get him removed. I really hope Mitt Romney sets up shop, as rumored, in Nevada. It will take someone a heavyweight like Mitt to make it happen.

[K G]

Sort of like:

Republicans 'go nuclear' with vote to ban the filibuster

</EM>
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Monday, 23 May 2005


The US Senate will hold a crucial vote tomorrow, barring a last-minute compromise, on a proposal to ban filibusters of President George Bush's judicial nominations - and, many warn, change the nature of the upper chamber of Congress.

The US Senate will hold a crucial vote tomorrow, barring a last-minute compromise, on a proposal to ban filibusters of President George Bush's judicial nominations - and, many warn, change the nature of the upper chamber of Congress.
Under the rule change, described by many constitutional experts as a potential watershed in more than 200 years of Senate history, a simple majority of just 51 Senators would be required to end debate, instead of the current "super-majority" of 60.
The proposal relates only to judicial nominations, but minority Democrats charge that it is the thin end of a wedge that would ultimately end the filibuster in its entirety. Even in its present form however, the stakes could hardly be higher.
Tomorrow's expected test vote will involve just one nomination, of the Texas state judge Priscilla Owen to the 5th circuit court of appeals, based in New Orleans. Democrats claim she is an extreme conservative, unfitted to so important a post. Republicans contend that, whatever her views, she is entitled to a straight up-or-down vote. But they have only 55 of the 100 Senate seats, not enough to force an end to a filibuster.
Assuming this fate befalls Ms Owen, the Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, is expected to ask Vice-President Dick Cheney, in his role as Senate president, to declare filibusters illegal for federal appeal court and Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Mr Frist would then call a vote to uphold that ruling. This is the "nuclear option", so called because senators warn it will blow relations between the two parties to smithereens.

Everything will be just DANDY if it doesn't happen, Roger, just like it didn't happen in 2005....so, in answer to your question...NO...it isn't like 2005 yet...and I really don't think it will happen now, 'cause the democrats want their majority to last more than 4 years, and that goal is going to be difficult to achieve as it is....

kg

[Eric Johnson]

I believe what is being discussed is "reconciliation". This has always been applied to budget or later fiscal policy generally. What Senator Reid is talking about is trying to use this process for virtually everything.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconci...(U.S._Congress)

Eric

[Bob Gutermuth]

The old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he had faithfully served the people of the nation's capital.


He motioned for his nurse to come near.

"Yes, Father?" said the nurse.

"I would really like to see Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi before I die", whispered the priest.

"I'll see what I can do, Father," replied the nurse.

The nurse sent the request to them and waited for a response. Soon the word arrived. Harry and Nancy would be delighted to visit the priest.

As they went to the hospital, Harry commented to Nancy, "I don't know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images."

Nancy couldn't help but agree.

When they arrived at the priest's room, the priest took Nancy 's hand in his right hand and Harry's hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest's face.

Finally, Nancy spoke. "Father, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?"

The old priest slowly replied, "I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." The old priest continued..."He died between two lying thieves. I would like to do the same..."