Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHY HARRY REID DOESN'T FORCE REPUBLICANS TO FILIBUSTER.
One of the most common assignment desks is recent weeks has been on the filibuster: Why, you ask, doesn't Reid just make the GOP talk all night? Ryan Grim looked into this and obtained a memo Reid's office wrote on the Senate rules. The problem, Reid's people concluded, is that the Republicans wouldn't have to talk. And the Senate parliamentarians agree.
The archetypal filibuster was Strom Thurmond's 24-hour talk-a-thon in opposition to civil rights. Thurmond read the phone book, the recipes, all of it. But Thurmond's filibuster was always doomed: Democrats and Northern Republicans had the votes to shut him down (which they did). His gabfest was a Senatorial courtesy: They allowed their esteemed colleague to demonstrate the depth of his opposition to the measure. When he exhausted himself, they invoked cloture and voted on the bill.
But delay in the Senate, Grim finds, doesn't require a long speech. It requires only one Republican to be president, and he or she doesn't need to say anything in front of the cameras at all. Every time the Democrats tried to vote, the Republican would simply have to say "I suggest the absence of a quorum." At that point, says Grim, "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."
"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."
What you could do, then, is create the equivalent of a Senate shutdown. That would certainly dramatize the obstruction. But it wouldn't be senators filibustering. It would be senators on the cable news shows arguing their case. And few in Washington want to risk a government shutdown, as they remember what happened to Gingrich when he tried it.
COMMENTS (18)
So then whats the point of even having the fillibuster? None that I can see.
Posted by: Steve Balboni | February 23, 2009 12:35 PM
this begs the question of why can't/won't we change the rules to have filibusters be reading the phonebook or at least something more productive than emptying the room. i mean, come on... why can't we?
Posted by: sarah | February 23, 2009 12:39 PM
No, that doesn't work. I think people went over this at some point. The present Senators can instruct the Senate Seargant-at-arms to escort Members to the Senate. This is not optional; Bob Packwood was physically dragged to the Senate on some CFR legislation in 1988.
And I'm pretty sure you can't have the Senators hang out in Guantanomo and avoid the Seargant-at-Arms.
Anyway, once there is a known quorum, I don't think the Senate President has to listen to the schmuck who keeps suggesting an absence of a quorum.
The issue with the stimulus bill was that it wasn't a cloture vote; it was a vote to waive the point of order for violating PAYGO requirements.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 23, 2009 12:42 PM
"few in Washington want to risk a government shutdown, as they remember what happened to Gingrich when he tried it."
So whay is it that we don't want to force a filibuster?
Wouldn't endless quorum calls look just as obstructive as reading from the phone book?
Aren't the atmospherics even better for the Democrats? The Republicans won't look like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington. They'll look like what they are, a minority using a parliamentary maneuver to avoid an up or down vote on popular legislation, shutting down the government in the process.
Isn't that a confrontation we would win? The story Kevin tells doesn't hang together. Am I missing something?
Posted by: tomtom | February 23, 2009 1:03 PM
I second tomtom's point. Ezra, care to field that follow up?
Posted by: Peter A. Basso | February 23, 2009 1:08 PM
Packwood was dragged back to the Senate in 1988 at Robert Byrd's request. Problem was, he was lightly injured in the the arrest. This caused backlash and the bill was still never vote on.
Posted by: Ezra | February 23, 2009 1:10 PM
A quorum is just 51 votes. There are 57 Dems. What am I missing?
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm
Posted by: John I | February 23, 2009 1:10 PM
Once there is a known quorum, the Senate has to do at least one thing of business before another quorum call can be made.
So the person calling for quorum can make the call, have the quorum be met, then add an amendment. Then they can call for another quorum.
http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Filibusters_and_Cloture_in_the_Senate.pdf
Posted by: Alex | February 23, 2009 1:11 PM
I am seconding tomtom. I think the quorum call gambit would be even more offensive to the now totally pised off American voters.
Just get our over 60% approval rating Prez to get on the telly and do a Reaganesque, "There they go again..."
Democratic Senators: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Posted by: Keith G | February 23, 2009 1:14 PM
I think excusing Reid because of the particulars of parliamentary filibuster rules misses the point. A super-minority (which is a phrase that ought to enter the lexicon of every elected Democrat) is using the mere threat of a shutdown to kill/change bills they don't like. I say, whatever this super-minority is threatening, whether it's a quorum call (excellent for afternoon naps btw), a filibuster, or a Mexican hat dance- they should be forced to do it. Go ahead, shut down the Senate. Allow the people's business to go unattended because you can't stand the idea of the majority having their way in a democratic society. We've all seen that graph showing the public is blaming Republicans for the failure of bi-partisanship on the stimulus bill. This is an easy call- Reid needs to grow a pair. They are a freaking super-minority: NO ONE AGREES WITH THEIR POSITION!
Posted by: mkd | February 23, 2009 1:20 PM
The Republicans would love to shut down the Senate. When you're relying on public opinion to convince them that they're wrong, it's not going to work. Just see how well it worked on Republicans in the California legislature.
Posted by: Alex | February 23, 2009 1:27 PM
Not an expert here, but Alex there are problems with your comparisons. One is that the legislation itself, in CA requires a 2/3 vote so technically they cannot be accused of gaming the system.
Second is that the 11 hardcore Repugs (all in extremely safe gerrymandered districts) in the CA Senate are very potent in a 40 member body. Third is just the notion the CA politics is just, well, just more bizarre than what is average for our nation.
Posted by: Keith G | February 23, 2009 1:52 PM
"But delay in the Senate, Grim finds, doesn't require a long speech. It requires only one Republican to be president…"
I know this is a typo, but I like it anyway. With the Senate's supermajority requirements, any one Republican senator can be President!
Posted by: tomemos | February 23, 2009 1:54 PM
Also, the Democrats have to be there to meet quorum. So you have one Republican at a time, tag-teaming with the others, while the Democrats all have to be in the chamber continuously.
Posted by: Scott de B. | February 23, 2009 1:55 PM
Does this explanation makes any sense at all?
If someone calls for a vote, a quorum call is not in order; what is in order is a call for a roll-call vote. For the obvious reason.
There's something wrong, or at least incomplete, about this explanation.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | February 23, 2009 2:24 PM
So? Then exercise the nuclear option-lite: change the rules to require a filibuster to actually be a filibuster. Reid gets his way, GOP actually has to make a stand, which they won't do unless they absolutely have to, minority rights are preserved, the Dems come out looking good, and everybody wins.
Sorry, not buying that Reid just isn't a coward.
Posted by: Salvo | February 23, 2009 2:49 PM
Changing Senate rules would require a 2/3rd majority.
The only reason a "nuclear" option was even available during the Republican controlled Senate was because Dick Cheney was a 4th branch.
Posted by: Alex | February 23, 2009 3:46 PM
I'm with tomtom. A silent Senate interrupted by quorum calls is just as bad as filibuster of words. Hell, the Dems could stream a telefon with hard luck stories and cuts back to the Senate floor. I can just hear Reid, or his designate, doing a quorum call with a "but first, a word from Elizabeth Johnson who has a hungry one year old with foobarmatosis and really, really wants to get him to a doctor". There is nothing like cheap dramatics.
Of course, there is the issue of timing. How much bang is this worth now, versus, let us say October 2010? You can't do this all the time, and it may be too early. It will be more valuable once the Republicans go a few rounds of legislation denied and increasing anti-Republican feeling around the nation, just as it would be more valuable around the next election.
Posted by: Kaleberg | February 23, 2009 7:05 PM