With Health Care Reform Tied Up In The Senate, Harkin Revisits Call To End Filibuster

That king of blame game logic makes you and all the other "sit on your ass and gripe" pseudo-activists equally culpable. Of course, you'll just try to blame anyone but yourself. What a typical pseudo-activist response!

Thanks for putting a finer point on it.

Since it was never actually deployed, exactly which nuclear option (there's probably several) the Republicans were considering using was never 100% clear.

Based on historical formulations of it, the basic reasoning is that the Senate acts by majority (per the US Constitution) and therefore can transact any and all business by majority vote (with the exception of Constitutional amendments). Ergo, since the Constitution supercedes the Senate rules, if the Senate can invoke cloture at all, it can do so by simple majority.

This, in itself, does not destroy the filibuster because Senators can still (theoretically) make endless speeches. But if the Senate can pass any motion by majority, it can invoke cloture much more easily, and thus end the endless speeches faster. Nonetheless, establishing this precedent would pave the way for the Senate becoming more like the House--Passing special rules of order for all major bills in order to limit debate and ensure a vote.

I think that would be a good thing, to be perfectly honest, at least in terms of encouraging orderly procedure. The facts that the parliamentary reasoning is itself valid and that a challenge to it is unlikely hold up in a court (courts typically want to avoid ruling on matters of procedure and when they do they always side with the group that's in power) makes the nuclear option very attractive.

However, it would have a long-term impact for both sides, since it's something that once done is pretty hard to reverse. That said, to be perfectly realistic, given the abuses of the current situation by the current minority party, and their apparent willingness to pull the trigger when they were in power, I'd be willing to believe it's really only a matter of time before it happens. Will it be the Dems now or the Republicans when they get back into power (someday)? Either way, it'll be soon.

"OK...so could they not amend the 2/3 rule with a simple majority and move on?"

They could theoretically modify the 2/3 rule with simple majority via the nuclear option. If precedent is that the Senate acts by majority (per the Constitution), what the Rules say about the vote required for cloture really doesn't matter, though.

"I don't recall anything in the Constitution that says the Senate requires a 2/3 majority for cloture."

The Constitution doesn't say anything about cloture. The Constitution itself says that each house of Congress may establish its own rules of procedure. The Rules and customs of the Senate allow for unlimited debate. That gives the opportunity for filibusters.

The motion for cloture was added to the Senate's rules because the filibuster was becoming a problem. When the cloture motion was first introduced as an option in the rules, a 2/3 vote was required to invoke cloture on anything; it was basically there so that a handful of senators could not obstruct the will of the vast majority of the Senate.

As the filibuster has become increasingly abused and politics has grown more partisan, the requirement for passing most cloture motions (except those on matters of the Rules) dropped to 3/5.

"There's impeachment, veto overrides, accession of the Vice-president and a couple of other things, but nothing requiring a 2/3 majority to end debate. Robert's Rules of Order may be handy, but they ain't in the USC."

For starters, Senate deliberations are not based on Robert's Rules of Order (ROR). The Senate has its own Rules which are based on general parliamentary customs but the body does not recognize any particular parliamentary authority as the basis of its rules.

Secondly, cloture does not end debate. It simply limits the amount of future debate that will be allowed and establishes a strict germaneness requirement for amendments. It is not the same as "calling the question" and closing debate completely. To compare the cloture motion to motions present in ROR, the motion to invoke cloture is more similar to the motion to limit debate than it is to the motion to end debate (which is called the motion for the previous question).

In practice, if cloture is invoked the filibuster becomes useless because a vote is guaranteed, but that does not mean the Senators opposed cannot still prolong the debate for another 30 hours.

So when a health care bill passes will you do us all a favor and come clean by admitting that you are in way over your head by your participation on this site?

It appears every time you post you invite humiliation upon yourself as the masses here run circles around you. Unfortunately, you're in an intellectual league so far below your average political junkie here that you remain oblivious to how silly you look.

BTW, HCR will pass. Whether there will be a PO in it is what's being debated kiddo.