Reid: Reconsiliation fix for HCR passed in 60 days.

[Phantasee]

I don't think anyone seriously thought about Lizzy's chances of becoming Queen when they named her. Nobody expected her uncle would abdicate at that point, which meant her father wasn't really thinking about who would succeed him on the throne, seeing as he didn't plan on sitting on it himself.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, missed that. Two queens should never have the same name anyway; plenty of good names in english and german.

Why not? They do it with kings all the time.

[eion]

I don't think anyone seriously thought about Lizzy's chances of becoming Queen when they named her. Nobody expected her uncle would abdicate at that point, which meant her father wasn't really thinking about who would succeed him on the throne, seeing as he didn't plan on sitting on it himself.

Yes but if you'll remember his birth name was Albert (Frederick Arthur George), but he changed it to the most common name for english kings, George. How original. He could have gone with anything. Like "Wasnsupposedtobehere", or "Mybrothersanazi". Yes, His Majesty Mybrothersanazi the First by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith. Has a nice ring to it.

Elizabeth II was asked what name she would reign under, and she answered, "Oh, my own name; what else?" Which I always thought was a very regal way to say shove off.

Oh, missed that. Two queens should never have the same name anyway; plenty of good names in English and German.

Why not? They do it with kings all the time.

Yes, but quite a few of the kings have been queens as well, especially the sequels.

[Sea Skimmer]

That is bullshit. I will give you that most Americans may not be able to name all the 'founding fathers' or even give you a vague idea about who stood for what, but as a whole, the term 'founding fathers' carries quite a bit of weight. What Mike is saying is that just invoking the name is enough to give false credence to whatever is being said that 'founding fathers' is tacked on to. Americans as a whole are basically taught not to question the 'founding fathers', and for the most part, it has worked out pretty well.

Call bullshit all you fucking what, I don’t know what kind of idiot circles you might run in, but I talk politics with a lot of people and that’s just not an issue people base positions on. Maybe PA is different from the rest of the country, but you’d kind of think the area around the revolutionary capital and home of more then one of the founding fathers would be at the heart of that. But its not. 99.99% of the time the term ever even comes up for any reason its web forums, usually this one too with people going on rants about how blind faith in the founding fathers is the doom of all politics.

[Questor]

That is bullshit. I will give you that most Americans may not be able to name all the 'founding fathers' or even give you a vague idea about who stood for what, but as a whole, the term 'founding fathers' carries quite a bit of weight. What Mike is saying is that just invoking the name is enough to give false credence to whatever is being said that 'founding fathers' is tacked on to. Americans as a whole are basically taught not to question the 'founding fathers', and for the most part, it has worked out pretty well.

Call bullshit all you fucking what, I don’t know what kind of idiot circles you might run in, but I talk politics with a lot of people and that’s just not an issue people base positions on. Maybe PA is different from the rest of the country, but you’d kind of think the area around the revolutionary capital and home of more then one of the founding fathers would be at the heart of that. But its not. 99.99% of the time the term ever even comes up for any reason its web forums, usually this one too with people going on rants about how blind faith in the founding fathers is the doom of all politics.

I've got to agree with Skimmer. The only time the founding fathers get mentioned around here is in historical context. And I hang out in some very political circles.

Wait, there may have been some discussion of them, but that was usually sarcastic. And of course, they are mentioned in the curriculum of history classes, and at that time of the year there is usually some debate as to their historical significance as compared with - say - the renaissance philosophers or the french philosophers.

I really do think that the founding father worship is an internet thing. The conservatives I know are far more likely to revere Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin than Washington, Franklin Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

The mere fact that most people would include Lincoln as one of the founding fathers when asked should tell you how much it is code for "the guys who were mentioned by name in history class."

[Darth Wong]

Oh right, nobody in America ever appeals to the authority of the Founding Fathers, right? After all, it's not as if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly do it regularly, and it's not as if FOXNews is the #1 rated news network in America, right? And it's not as if Ben Franklin's tired old quote about giving up a bit of liberty for a bit of security doesn't get trotted out on a regular basis, right?

I don't give a fuck if you and Skimmer talk a lot of politics; your personal circle of acquaintances is a ludicrously small sample size upon which to base such a conclusion, and you know it. Meanwhile, you have a national network with tens of millions of followers to whom such talk is normal, and is obviously not considered anywhere near as ridiculous or stupid as it would be if you replaced "Founding Fathers" with "Queen Elizabeth" and tried it in England.

[Sea Skimmer]

Oh right, nobody in America ever appeals to the authority of the Founding Fathers, right? After all, it's not as if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly do it regularly, and it's not as if FOXNews is the #1 rated news network in America, right?

Yeah you know how many viewers that actually fucking means they get? For prime time it’s a mighty 2.25 million. In a nation with almost 300 million people, around two third of whom are voters. That’s the population of one fucking medium sized city. You can see the other stations get even less, which shows how much anyone in America gives a fuck about the TV cable news anymore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/3 ... 04260.html

I don't give a fuck if you and Skimmer talk a lot of politics; your personal circle of acquaintances is a ludicrously small sample size upon which to base such a conclusion, and you know it.

And yet you want to me accept 1% of the population an overwhelming demonstration? What a fucking load of bullshit. When we already fucking know that a lot of people just watch fox news to laugh at it in the first place and they get a couple million viewers when supposedly they are the station for half the nations voters. Fox news on average reaches a portion of the population below the fucking margin of error in opinion poles.

[Darth Wong]

Oh right, nobody in America ever appeals to the authority of the Founding Fathers, right? After all, it's not as if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly do it regularly, and it's not as if FOXNews is the #1 rated news network in America, right?

Yeah you know how many viewers that actually fucking means they get? For prime time it’s a mighty 2.25 million. In a nation with almost 300 million people, around two third of whom are voters. That’s the population of one fucking medium sized city. You can see the other stations get even less, which shows how much anyone in America gives a fuck about the TV cable news anymore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/3 ... 04260.html

I don't give a fuck if you and Skimmer talk a lot of politics; your personal circle of acquaintances is a ludicrously small sample size upon which to base such a conclusion, and you know it.

And yet you want to me accept 1% of the population an overwhelming demonstration? What a fucking load of bullshit. When we already fucking know that a lot of people just watch fox news to laugh at it in the first place and they get a couple million viewers when supposedly they are the station for half the nations voters. Fox news on average reaches a portion of the population below the fucking margin of error in opinion poles.

Are you mentally retarded? You cite a population of a few dozen people, or whatever the size of your personal circle is, as evidence, and then you mock a competing sample size of millions of fucking people?

[Sea Skimmer]

Are you mentally retarded? You cite a population of a few dozen people, or whatever the size of your personal circle is, as evidence, and then you mock a competing sample size of millions of fucking people?

What was that about tens of millions a minute ago? And it'd be a lot more then a few dozen people at this point I ever talked too buddy. Random sampling means something too, and if it was really some vast bulk of Americans I'd fucking run into it at least once. You just don’t fucking want to face reality. You think tens of millions of raving American idiots fucking watch Fox news, suck down every word and then go vote because it’s a nice easy picture to draw when you yourself just get the damn cable news and online idiocy 99% of time.

The reality is most people don’t watch that stuff at all, and a lot of people who do just comment on how dumb all news coverage is at the bar. This is not some vast secret from the American population that the quality of news coverage is abysmal.

The real reality is people do form their own opinions, and they do if for there own selfish reasons. They aren’t thinking that long ago, they are thinking here and now, and always Americans want more money to spend because that's what the whole culture says to do. So low taxes are popular, and the average person doesn't NEED an excuse as to why. People online just run to the founding fathers because the internet lends itself to multi day debates in which people pull crap to quote on whatever the topic might be to try to win. That isn’t that way politics day to day work.

[Havok]

That is bullshit. I will give you that most Americans may not be able to name all the 'founding fathers' or even give you a vague idea about who stood for what, but as a whole, the term 'founding fathers' carries quite a bit of weight. What Mike is saying is that just invoking the name is enough to give false credence to whatever is being said that 'founding fathers' is tacked on to. Americans as a whole are basically taught not to question the 'founding fathers', and for the most part, it has worked out pretty well.

Call bullshit all you fucking what, I don’t know what kind of idiot circles you might run in, but I talk politics with a lot of people and that’s just not an issue people base positions on. Maybe PA is different from the rest of the country, but you’d kind of think the area around the revolutionary capital and home of more then one of the founding fathers would be at the heart of that. But its not. 99.99% of the time the term ever even comes up for any reason its web forums, usually this one too with people going on rants about how blind faith in the founding fathers is the doom of all politics.

Oh well if you talk politics with a lot of people... like one hundred people? then I stand corrected.
The circle I run in is the very liberal and democratic San Francisco bay area, and as this is the only board I go on that has ever talked politics, guess I shouldn't have even had a vague idea what Mike was talking about since 99.99% of the time the term comes up is only on the internet... oops.

[Questor]

Oh right, nobody in America ever appeals to the authority of the Founding Fathers, right? After all, it's not as if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly do it regularly, and it's not as if FOXNews is the #1 rated news network in America, right? And it's not as if Ben Franklin's tired old quote about giving up a bit of liberty for a bit of security doesn't get trotted out on a regular basis, right?

You generalized americans based on your impression from another VERY small sample size - the talking heads on Fox News. Simply saying that it is the highest rated network means nothing and you know it. Fox News is infotainment, and the programming on Fox news is better at engaging the uneducated and willfully ignorant than the programming on CNN or MSNBC - both of which offer a slightly more traditional take on the concept of news. We can have an argument about the desirability of that any time you'd like - although I suspect we are not in any disagreement there.

Simply saying that "americans" worship the founding fathers when most of them can not name them correctly is drawing a conclusion unsupported by data. If you want to say that americans worship at the alter of Fox News, I will not argue with you. If you want to say that Fox News worships at the alter of the founding fathers, I will not argue with you. On the other hand, saying that the arguments that are being made on Fox News are given significantly more weight because Fox News is quoting the founding fathers is not supported by any evidence I've seen. They give the talking head's opinions weight because they are being appealed to on basic levels and duped into believing things that are against their interest.

Seriously, if what you were saying were correct, the level of disinformation about UHC would be far lower. People would spend all their time making appeals to the authority of the "founding fathers", rather than making shit up about "Death Panels" and birth certificates. Once again: Most of these people don't know who the "founding fathers" are.

I don't give a fuck if you and Skimmer talk a lot of politics; your personal circle of acquaintances is a ludicrously small sample size upon which to base such a conclusion, and you know it.

I do. Unfortunately, unlike Mr. Murdoch, I lack a multimillion dollar polling apparatus to determine what the man in the street feels. I can only go on my own experience.

[Sea Skimmer]

Oh well if you talk politics with a lot of people... like one hundred people? then I stand corrected.
The circle I run in is the very liberal and democratic San Francisco bay area, and as this is the only board I go on that has ever talked politics, guess I shouldn't have even had a vague idea what Mike was talking about since 99.99% of the time the term comes up is only on the internet... oops.

You would have heard it in middle school because it’s a basic part of American history, which people then mostly forget along with geography and math in this country. So your point was what again, that I should think you never went to school? In any case I am around a vast majority of conservatives. That is just the way this area is, conservative from the damn day settlers stepped into Pennsylvania, and my work is filled with nothing but them. And it just does not come up. Now Reagan, his name is invoked sometimes, but then why shouldn’t it when Reagan had ideas which are directly relevant to modern politics. Bad ones, but its not just a vague historical concept.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Unfortunately, the current Senate has by choice bound itself to the rules of previous Senates, something they are under no obligation to do. The next Senate could rule that all members must wear pink cowboy hats and pasties, and nothing else, while on the Senate floor with a simple majority vote during the opening of the session, but instead they just ratify previous rules.

The US Senate does not vote in its rules at the start; only the House does that. The Senate inherits its rules from the last one. As I understand it, this is due to a parliamentary technicality: because only a third of the Senate is up for replacement at a time, the Senate is considered to be one entity since its inception.

As far as I know, the only way to remove the filibuster (without a 2/3 majority voting it out) is to implement the so-called Nuclear Option. In that procedure a filibuster would be declared unconstitutional by the Chair and pushed to a debate-free vote. This still needs a majority to do that, keeping in mind that the majority party's centrist Senators benefit most from the status-quo (not to mention the whole of the minority party).

And we haven't even started talking about the privilege and tradition of Senatorial Holds, also known as a one man filibuster. Think 41 idiots holding back progress is infuriating? Try the same thing with one moron with a beef. The best part is that holds don't even have the nebulous procedural support that the filibuster has; it’s just a tradition of the Senate, like pinching intern's asses and paddling the majority leader with a plank off the U.S.S. Constitution at the Senate Christmas Party.

Actually, the Senatorial Hold is an implicit filibuster threat, and is based on Senate procedural rules. The holding Senator is threatening to use various procedural tricks to slow the Senate down to a crawl if it includes a disliked bit. Since it doesn't involve holding things up permanently (it doesn't require a 41-person block of supporters to implement), it's not effective against major legislation, but it is a big issue for routine bills.

[eion]

Unfortunately, the current Senate has by choice bound itself to the rules of previous Senates, something they are under no obligation to do. The next Senate could rule that all members must wear pink cowboy hats and pasties, and nothing else, while on the Senate floor with a simple majority vote during the opening of the session, but instead they just ratify previous rules.

The US Senate does not vote in its rules at the start; only the House does that. The Senate inherits its rules from the last one. As I understand it, this is due to a parliamentary technicality: because only a third of the Senate is up for replacement at a time, the Senate is considered to be one entity since its inception.

As far as I know, the only way to remove the filibuster (without a 2/3 majority voting it out) is to implement the so-called Nuclear Option. In that procedure a filibuster would be declared unconstitutional by the Chair and pushed to a debate-free vote. This still needs a majority to do that, keeping in mind that the majority party's centrist Senators benefit most from the status-quo (not to mention the whole of the minority party).

There's arguments on both sides of this by various parliamentarians. Yours is the conservative opinion, but it really hinges on how you define a "session." We don't still call it the first senate; it's the 111th congress, as a whole. The senate operates on the rule of unanimous consent, so one senator can bog things down easily.

[

And we haven't even started talking about the privilege and tradition of Senatorial Holds, also known as a one man filibuster. Think 41 idiots holding back progress is infuriating? Try the same thing with one moron with a beef. The best part is that holds don't even have the nebulous procedural support that the filibuster has; it’s just a tradition of the Senate, like pinching intern's asses and paddling the majority leader with a plank off the U.S.S. Constitution at the Senate Christmas Party.

Actually, the Senatorial Hold is an implicit filibuster threat, and is based on Senate procedural rules. The holding Senator is threatening to use various procedural tricks to slow the Senate down to a crawl if it includes a disliked bit. Since it doesn't involve holding things up permanently (it doesn't require a 41-person block of supporters to implement), it's not effective against major legislation, but it is a big issue for routine bills.

Holds have nothing to do with the filibuster; they go back to unanimous consent again. "no motion to proceed to the consideration of any bill...shall be entertained...unless by unanimous consent"
I’m Senator Bob. I don’t like a bill, so I tell my party leader that if I were on the floor I would withhold consent on any procedural vote related to it. Party leader informs presiding officer and the bill is stopped until the hold is removed or defeated by cloture.
They may also be defeated by cloture, but they are not the same. It is only by collusion amongst senators of both parties that the system of holds is still possible, unless the holding senator remains on the floor at all times to withhold his consent.

[Darth Wong]

Are you mentally retarded? You cite a population of a few dozen people, or whatever the size of your personal circle is, as evidence, and then you mock a competing sample size of millions of fucking people?

What was that about tens of millions a minute ago?

Nothing has changed; you're just acting as if the group they represent contains no one but those actively viewing at one time: an utterly ridiculous assumption. Since you seem to be deliberately obtuse tonight, I will explain: it is hardly reasonable to assume that every single person in America who does not actively watch FOXNews in prime time is so diametrically opposed to their rhetoric that he would find it laughable. There is roughly a third of the population which is absolutely, immovably pro-Republican, and FOXNews viewers are most likely fairly representative of that entire demographic. Ergo, tens of millions of people. The fact that only a few million people are actually watching at any given time does not mean that their influence stops there, for fuck's sake.

And it'd be a lot more then a few dozen people at this point I ever talked too buddy. Random sampling means something too, and if it was really some vast bulk of Americans I'd fucking run into it at least once.

You mean like you do all the time on the Internet, which is another huge population that you casually dismissed with a wave of your hand earlier?

You just don’t fucking want to face reality. You think tens of millions of raving American idiots fucking watch Fox news, suck down every word and then go vote because it’s a nice easy picture to draw when you yourself just get the damn cable news and online idiocy 99% of time.

The only one here who won't face reality is you. It's not as if FOXNews are the only people who do it either. Jon Stewart is not exactly a far-right FOXNews supporter, and he falls for this "original intent" horseshit too. I've seen him do it enough times. Moreover, you are moving the goalposts: it is not necessary for people to invoke the Founding Fathers every damned day; it is only necessary for those people to not think it's utterly ridiculous for someone to think it's important to know "what our Founding Fathers would have wanted".

The reality is most people don’t watch that stuff at all, and a lot of people who do just comment on how dumb all news coverage is at the bar. This is not some vast secret from the American population that the quality of news coverage is abysmal.

The real reality is people do form their own opinions, and they do if for there own selfish reasons. They aren’t thinking that long ago, they are thinking here and now, and always Americans want more money to spend because that's what the whole culture says to do. So low taxes are popular, and the average person doesn't NEED an excuse as to why. People online just run to the founding fathers because the internet lends itself to multi day debates in which people pull crap to quote on whatever the topic might be to try to win. That isn’t that way politics day to day work.

It doesn't matter whether people quote them "day to day", you dishonest twat. It matters whether they think it's laughable to give a shit what the "Founding Fathers" would have wanted at all. You seem to think that Internet references to the "Founding Fathers" don't count because Internet users would run to their dictionary of quotations more readily than people would face to face, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question of whether they find that a valid argument. It only has to do with the ease of actually using it.

[Havok]

Oh well if you talk politics with a lot of people... like one hundred people? then I stand corrected.
The circle I run in is the very liberal and democratic San Francisco bay area, and as this is the only board I go on that has ever talked politics, guess I shouldn't have even had a vague idea what Mike was talking about since 99.99% of the time the term comes up is only on the internet... oops.

You would have heard it in middle school because it’s a basic part of American history, which people then mostly forget along with geography and math in this country. So your point was what again, that I should think you never went to school? In any case I am around a vast majority of conservatives. That is just the way this area is, conservative from the damn day settlers stepped into Pennsylvania, and my work is filled with nothing but them. And it just does not come up. Now Reagan, his name is invoked sometimes, but then why shouldn’t it when Reagan had ideas which are directly relevant to modern politics. Bad ones, but its not just a vague historical concept.

Don't be an obtuse ass. You know damn well what I was talking about. Or maybe you are just an idiot and need to work on your reading comprehension.
I know what Mike was referring to, something NOT taught in middle school, about American's mindless obsession and bowing almost just at the mention of the 'founding fathers' and I didn't learn about it from any fucking place on the internet. It comes up, whether you like it or not. Good for you that your politics sewing circle doesn't experience it, but a VAST portion of this country's population has a basic, unfounded, 'faith' in the founding fathers and when some one attaches the name to an argument or point, as I said, it gives it a false sense of credence.

[Flagg]

Has anyone mentioned that the senate filibuster is solely a senate procedure with no constitutional backing other than allowing the houses of the legislature to create their own procedural rules? It wasn't even used until 1837 and beforehand was only considered theoretical within the procedures of the senate.

[stormthebeaches]

Aren't you people being a little unfair on the Founding Fathers? Granted, some of their ideas were/are dated (slavery being the obvious one) but the Founding Fathers don't support a lot of the things that the Republicans say they would support. The Founding Fathers did want the United States to be isolationist and they wanted separation of Church and State.

Also, I'm going to have to agree with Sea Skimmer. I don't hear much Founding Father worship in real life, it seems to be an internet thing.

[Vympel]

The idea that you can actually control government policy by simply refusing to stop talking or taking a pee break is something that would seem utterly insane and ridiculous if you didn't take it for granted

What I find hilarious about the current situation is that they're not even really filibustering. As I understand it, they're just making their intent to filibuster known, which is apparently as good as the real thing.

[Liberty]

Don't be an obtuse ass. You know damn well what I was talking about. Or maybe you are just an idiot and need to work on your reading comprehension.
I know what Mike was referring to, something NOT taught in middle school, about American's mindless obsession and bowing almost just at the mention of the 'founding fathers' and I didn't learn about it from any fucking place on the internet. It comes up, whether you like it or not. Good for you that your politics sewing circle doesn't experience it, but a VAST portion of this country's population has a basic, unfounded, 'faith' in the founding fathers and when some one attaches the name to an argument or point, as I said, it gives it a false sense of credence.

I'm going to have to totally agree with Havok and Mike on this. I can't speak for anyone else, but I grew up in and still live in the heartland of the Midwest, and it is rife with founding father worship. If you quote a founding father backing up your point, it's the end of the debate. Now I'll admit that this is mainly among conservatives, but even among liberals the tendency is to try to explain the context of the quote or to justify it; I've never heard anyone say "who gives a fuck what the founding fathers said?

Now granted I grew up in a fairly sheltered fundamentalist home, but it wasn't until my Junior year of college that I even thought of questioning the wisdom of the founders. Surlethe asked me one day what makes the founding fathers any smarter than well educated leaders today, and I suddenly realized that I didn't have an answer. Not even that, I'd never even thought of the question! And as I thought about it I realized something...the fucking founding fathers couldn't agree on a damned thing themselves, so what the hell makes people today think their word is gospel truth?

Anyway, my point is that in my experience, founding father worship is alive and well. And also, have you ever stopped to wonder about the term "Tea Party" used by the Tea Party Movement? Where do you think they got that? Um...the founding fathers. What do they claim that their protests are based on? Um...the founding fathers. I really kind of feel sorry for them...the founders, not the tea partiers.

[Darth Holbytlan]

There's arguments on both sides of this by various parliamentarians. Yours is the conservative opinion, but it really hinges on how you define a "session." We don't still call it the first senate; it's the 111th congress, as a whole.

I don't know which parliamentarians you've found that claim otherwise, but they've led you to basic misconceptions about Senate procedure—the Senate does not adopt its rules at the beginning of each congressional session; it runs with the previous rules already in place. This isn't a parliamentary opinion, this is what the Senate actually does.

Holds have nothing to do with the filibuster; they go back to unanimous consent again. "no motion to proceed to the consideration of any bill...shall be entertained...unless by unanimous consent"

I'm using the term "filibuster" more generically than you. You're talking about the specific procedure of gaining the floor and then talking non-stop. I'm referring to any parliamentary measure meant to block a bill's passage by preventing a vote. (See this CRS report.)

It is only by collusion amongst senators of both parties that the system of holds is still possible, unless the holding senator remains on the floor at all times to withhold his consent.

Not exactly. The hold process is part of a set of conventions developed to allow Senators to not be stuck in the Senate the whole time it is in session. The minority party independently enforces these conventions by making quorum calls if the majority party tries to act with unanimous consent on any matter that the minority's members might object to. Eliminating these conventions wouldn't get rid of holds, only Senators' ability to leave, ever. It's hard to see either party's membership letting that happen.

[eion]

The idea that you can actually control government policy by simply refusing to stop talking or taking a pee break is something that would seem utterly insane and ridiculous if you didn't take it for granted

What I find hilarious about the current situation is that they're not even really filibustering. As I understand it, they're just making their intent to filibuster known, which is apparently as good as the real thing.

Correct. No one Mr. Smiths anymore because the rules don't require it unless the Majority leader says so. A process called "tracking" allows multiple bills to be moving through the senate at once. The purpose of which was to keep the senate from becoming bogged down during a filibuster, but when the minority part filibusters EVERYTHING it just doesn't work. There have been calls for Reid to enfoced the filibuster in the traditional way to force the Republicans to stand up there 24/7 and read the phone book.

[eion]

There's arguments on both sides of this by various parliamentarians. Yours is the conservative opinion, but it really hinges on how you define a "session." We don't still call it the first senate; it's the 111th congress, as a whole.

I don't know which parliamentarians you've found that claim otherwise, but they've led you to basic misconceptions about Senate procedure—the Senate does not adopt its rules at the beginning of each congressional session; it runs with the previous rules already in place. This isn't a parliamentary opinion, this is what the Senate actually does.

A few on Maddow whose names escape me now. Parliamentary rules are not like the laws of physics, there are many many loopholes. The Nuclear option is one; cleaver people can and have figured out ways to twist the senate rules into knots, which is how the filibuster exists in the first place.

Holds have nothing to do with the filibuster; they go back to unanimous consent again. "no motion to proceed to the consideration of any bill...shall be entertained...unless by unanimous consent"

I'm using the term "filibuster" more generically than you. You're talking about the specific procedure of gaining the floor and then talking non-stop. I'm referring to any parliamentary measure meant to block a bill's passage by preventing a vote. (See this CRS report.)

We need to be very specific about the filibuster because it does have very specific rules, which when enforced limit its ability to stall voting. The senate seems to run on the honor system at the moment, or at least half the body is, so the filibuster is being abused wildly.

It is only by collusion amongst senators of both parties that the system of holds is still possible, unless the holding senator remains on the floor at all times to withhold his consent.

Not exactly. The hold process is part of a set of conventions developed to allow Senators to not be stuck in the Senate the whole time it is in session. The minority party independently enforces these conventions by making quorum calls if the majority party tries to act with unanimous consent on any matter that the minority's members might object to. Eliminating these conventions wouldn't get rid of holds, only Senators' ability to leave, ever. It's hard to see either party's membership letting that happen.

You really think if Richard Shelby had been required to be on the floor 24/7 to raise his continued objection to 80 of the president's nominees because his state wasn't getting enough pork he would have been able to do so?

Reid should be "working to the rules" in the Senate because the Republicans sure are. He's already done some of this like when he refused to grant any further time during the health care debate, but he needs to be a nightmare of a parliamentarian if he has any hope of getting anything done.

[Darth Holbytlan]

A few on Maddow whose names escape me now. Parliamentary rules are not like the laws of physics, there are many many loopholes. The Nuclear option is one; cleaver people can and have figured out ways to twist the senate rules into knots, which is how the filibuster exists in the first place.

Could you clarify what you are arguing here? I realized that parliamentary rules are complex and sometimes vague. It is possible that there is some way other than the Nuclear Option (or, of course, having 2/3rds of the Senate to force cloture on a rules change). But I don't know of any and have definitely not seen anyone with real knowledge of Senate procedure describe another method. I have already pointed out the error in the only alternative you have claimed—which, I notice, you have neither conceded nor defended.1

We need to be very specific about the filibuster because it does have very specific rules, which when enforced limit its ability to stall voting. The senate seems to run on the honor system at the moment, or at least half the body is, so the filibuster is being abused wildly.

Which is why I clarified my usage of "filibuster".

You really think if Richard Shelby had been required to be on the floor 24/7 to raise his continued objection to 80 of the president's nominees because his state wasn't getting enough pork he would have been able to do so?

No, I think that had Reid tried to ignore Shelby's holds, the minority would have forced a quorum call, allowing time for Shelby to arrive and personally object. You seem to be operating with the belief that a Senatorial Hold requires the cooperation of both sides, and that Reid could therefore unilaterally eliminate the problem. That is not the case. Reid does have the choice on whether to play along, as with standard filibuster threats, but pushing back would result in a massive slow-down in the Senate.

Reid should be "working to the rules" in the Senate because the Republicans sure are. He's already done some of this like when he refused to grant any further time during the health care debate, but he needs to be a nightmare of a parliamentarian if he has any hope of getting anything done.

It certainly feels like this to an outside observer such as myself. But the more I learn about Senate rules and procedures, the more I realize how tightly his hands are bound. My impression is still that he's not being nearly confrontational enough, but I may just be missing important subtleties. For example—and this is blind conjecture on my part—Reid could be laying the groundwork to convince the Democratic Senators to support drastic action such as the Nuclear Option. Or that could be giving him way too much credit.

1If you wish to defend it, please see Senate Rule V, the CRS report, and the Congressional Record of Senate's first day of the 111th Congress (warning: the direct link is a bit wonky) for some evidence against your claim. I can explain in more detail if need be.

[eion]

A few on Maddow whose names escape me now. Parliamentary rules are not like the laws of physics, there are many many loopholes. The Nuclear option is one; cleaver people can and have figured out ways to twist the senate rules into knots, which is how the filibuster exists in the first place.

Could you clarify what you are arguing here? I realized that parliamentary rules are complex and sometimes vague. It is possible that there is some way other than the Nuclear Option (or, of course, having 2/3rds of the Senate to force cloture on a rules change). But I don't know of any and have definitely not seen anyone with real knowledge of Senate procedure describe another method. I have already pointed out the error in the only alternative you have claimed—which, I notice, you have neither conceded nor defended.1

I wasn't able to find the segment on Maddow where they talked about it, and it was about a month ago so my memory of it is unclear.

As I remember it, the parliamentarian explained that the filibuster could be repealed at the start of the next congress (and only at the start of a congress) via a majority vote by the Senate without opportunity for filibuster. I cannot find a rule that allows for such, but the gentleman made it clear this could only happen during the beginning of a congress so perhaps a different set of rules govern the opening of a new sitting. Again, I cannot find the interview or the evidence described in it, so I'll concede this one for the time being.

You really think if Richard Shelby had been required to be on the floor 24/7 to raise his continued objection to 80 of the president's nominees because his state wasn't getting enough pork he would have been able to do so?

No, I think that had Reid tried to ignore Shelby's holds, the minority would have forced a quorum call, allowing time for Shelby to arrive and personally object. You seem to be operating with the belief that a Senatorial Hold requires the cooperation of both sides, and that Reid could therefore unilaterally eliminate the problem. That is not the case. Reid does have the choice on whether to play along, as with standard filibuster threats, but pushing back would result in a massive slow-down in the Senate.

I don't think the minority should support the blanket hold of 80 presidential appointees in any circumstance. I don’t think any sane minority would, but then these are republicans. The minority should have refused to honor his holds. If he wanted to sit on the floor and withhold his consent in person, that's his choice. The whole concept of "unanimous consent" seems very susceptible to corruption.

Reid should be "working to the rules" in the Senate because the Republicans sure are. He's already done some of this like when he refused to grant any further time during the health care debate, but he needs to be a nightmare of a parliamentarian if he has any hope of getting anything done.

It certainly feels like this to an outside observer such as myself. But the more I learn about Senate rules and procedures, the more I realize how tightly his hands are bound. My impression is still that he's not being nearly confrontational enough, but I may just be missing important subtleties. For example—and this is blind conjecture on my part—Reid could be laying the groundwork to convince the Democratic Senators to support drastic action such as the Nuclear Option. Or that could be giving him way too much credit.

I wouldn't put anything past him. He's a dog in a corner with his reelection in jeopardy. Politicians do strange things at election time, sometimes even the right thing. His hands are very tied if he constrains himself by what the republicans (At least now and not 4 years ago) say is the proper way to run a senate. He's shown less and less indication as time goes by that he is willing to play their game though.