Changing The Filibuster^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Rules of the Senate or, You Couldn't Make This Stuff Up
Q. What's this about reforming the filibuster?
A. There's no such thing as a filibuster.
Q. Whoa! Then why are they talking about reforming it?
A. Because they've all seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and want to believe in fairy tales.
Q. So there's no filibuster?
A. Nope.
Q. And no Santa Claus?
A. Is your name Virginia?
Q. Hey, I ask the questions, you make the smart-assed answers.
A. That wasn't a question.
Q. Okay, okay. What are they talking about, then?
A. Changing the Rules of the Senate.
Q. All 44 of them?
A. No, just some. Particularly the one that requires 60 votes to end debate on whether to begin debate on a piece of legislation or a nomination, then requires 60 votes again to end the debate they began so they can vote.
Q. Say what?
A. What.
Q. Doh. Why would they have such a stupid rule?
A. It's the United States Senate.
Q. Can they change the rule?
A. There's precedent that says they can't change a rule without 67 votes.
Q. Do they have 67 votes to change this rule?
A. No.
Q. Then why are they talking about changing it?
A. Because each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. So says the United States Constitution.
Q. WTF does that mean?
A. Whatever the Senate wants it to mean. They make their own rules, after all.
Q. So can they change the rule that says they can't change a rule without having 67 votes?
A. Only with 67 votes, of course.
Q. I just don't get it.
A. Don't feel bad. Neither does anyone else. But here's the trick:
Some people believe that there's a magical time that comes once every two years when a new Congress begins. Some people believe that during this magical time there are no rules, so the Senate can make up new rules, ignoring the old ones, and they can vote in these new rules with a simple majority, just like the House of Representatives does.
Q. And what does the minority think about this?
A. They hate the idea. They think the Rules of the Senate live in perpetuity.
Q. So what can they do about it if the majority changes the rules?
A. Nothing. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. It says so in the US Constitution.
Q. So why can't the majority change the rules at any time, not just during this magic time?
A. Some people think they can. But a majority of Senators don't think they can, so it's like arguing about angels, dancing and pins.
Q. So what do they want to change the 60-vote rule to?
A. One proposal is to invert the 60 vote rule.
Instead of demanding 60 votes to end debate on whether to begin debate on a piece of legislation or a nomination, the new rule would require 41 votes to prevent ending debate on whether to begin debate on a piece of legislation or a nomination. And 41 votes again to forestall then ending debate and then voting on the same.
Q. Uh, what's the difference?
A. The difference is that now the burden would be on the minority party (or those opposed to a bill) to 'produce the bodies'.
With the old rule, those opposing the bill don't even have to show up to vote on whether to end debate on whether to begin debate. Unless those in favor can produce 60 votes, the opposition wins by default. With the new rule, the opposition would be forced to repeatedly 'produce the bodies' -- come up with 41 votes -- in order to prevent legislation or a nomination from moving forward.
It would be a bit more like the mythical Mr. Smith filibuster, where the opposition had to keep talking continuously, refusing to yield the floor, until the majority gave up. Here, the opposition would have to be prepared to 'produce the 41 votes' at regular intervals; if they can keep doing it, the majority may eventually give up and go on to some other issue.
Q. So there'd still be a filibuster?
A. There's no such thing as a filibuster. It's called a 'cloture vote'.
Q. Why didn't you say so to begin with?
A. You didn't have 60 votes.
A similar Q&A Series on the Push to Pass the Health Care Bill
A. There's no such thing as a filibuster.
Q. Whoa! Then why are they talking about reforming it?
A. Because they've all seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and want to believe in fairy tales.
Q. So there's no filibuster?
A. Nope.
Q. And no Santa Claus?
A. Is your name Virginia?
Q. Hey, I ask the questions, you make the smart-assed answers.
A. That wasn't a question.
Q. Okay, okay. What are they talking about, then?
A. Changing the Rules of the Senate.
Q. All 44 of them?
A. No, just some. Particularly the one that requires 60 votes to end debate on whether to begin debate on a piece of legislation or a nomination, then requires 60 votes again to end the debate they began so they can vote.
Q. Say what?
A. What.
Q. Doh. Why would they have such a stupid rule?
A. It's the United States Senate.
Q. Can they change the rule?
A. There's precedent that says they can't change a rule without 67 votes.
Q. Do they have 67 votes to change this rule?
A. No.
Q. Then why are they talking about changing it?
A. Because each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. So says the United States Constitution.
Q. WTF does that mean?
A. Whatever the Senate wants it to mean. They make their own rules, after all.
Q. So can they change the rule that says they can't change a rule without having 67 votes?
A. Only with 67 votes, of course.
Q. I just don't get it.
A. Don't feel bad. Neither does anyone else. But here's the trick:
Some people believe that there's a magical time that comes once every two years when a new Congress begins. Some people believe that during this magical time there are no rules, so the Senate can make up new rules, ignoring the old ones, and they can vote in these new rules with a simple majority, just like the House of Representatives does.
Q. And what does the minority think about this?
A. They hate the idea. They think the Rules of the Senate live in perpetuity.
Q. So what can they do about it if the majority changes the rules?
A. Nothing. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. It says so in the US Constitution.
Q. So why can't the majority change the rules at any time, not just during this magic time?
A. Some people think they can. But a majority of Senators don't think they can, so it's like arguing about angels, dancing and pins.
Q. So what do they want to change the 60-vote rule to?
A. One proposal is to invert the 60 vote rule.
Instead of demanding 60 votes to end debate on whether to begin debate on a piece of legislation or a nomination, the new rule would require 41 votes to prevent ending debate on whether to begin debate on a piece of legislation or a nomination. And 41 votes again to forestall then ending debate and then voting on the same.
Q. Uh, what's the difference?
A. The difference is that now the burden would be on the minority party (or those opposed to a bill) to 'produce the bodies'.
With the old rule, those opposing the bill don't even have to show up to vote on whether to end debate on whether to begin debate. Unless those in favor can produce 60 votes, the opposition wins by default. With the new rule, the opposition would be forced to repeatedly 'produce the bodies' -- come up with 41 votes -- in order to prevent legislation or a nomination from moving forward.
It would be a bit more like the mythical Mr. Smith filibuster, where the opposition had to keep talking continuously, refusing to yield the floor, until the majority gave up. Here, the opposition would have to be prepared to 'produce the 41 votes' at regular intervals; if they can keep doing it, the majority may eventually give up and go on to some other issue.
Q. So there'd still be a filibuster?
A. There's no such thing as a filibuster. It's called a 'cloture vote'.
Q. Why didn't you say so to begin with?
A. You didn't have 60 votes.
A similar Q&A Series on the Push to Pass the Health Care Bill