Reconciliation, Cloture, and Filibusters

[SabercatPuck]

Well since I was curious to find out more about these terms and more specifiacally how they came into being and how they may apply to the upcoming health care (and likely other) vote, I started doing some research. Now keep in mind I would like to hear other opinions on all of the above terms and their uses, but one thing I found interesting was a recent threat of a "nuclear option" that was floated a few years back relating to Bush appointments but more interesting was the names of the so called "gang of 14" that came out to end the stalemate, they are :

John McCain (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_McCain) (R-Ariz.)
Lindsey Graham (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lindsey_Graham) (R-S.C.)
John Warner (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Warner) (R-Va.)
Olympia Snowe (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Olympia_Snowe) (R-Maine)
Susan Collins (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Susan_Collins) (R-Maine)
Mike DeWine (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mike_DeWine) (R-Ohio)
Lincoln Chafee (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lincoln_Chafee) (R-R.I.)
Democrats

Joe Lieberman (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman) (D-Conn.)*
Robert Byrd (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Byrd) (D-W.Va.)
Ben Nelson (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ben_Nelson) (D-Neb.)
Mary Landrieu (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Landrieu) (D-La.)
Daniel Inouye (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Inouye) (D-Hawaii)
Mark Pryor (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Pryor) (D-Ark.)
Ken Salazar (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ken_Salazar) (D-Colo.)
Definitly some familiar names in there

[B' en Natuf]

Filibusters are a useful and neccessary tool in the legislative proccess. They are an uncnstitutional avoidance of Senatorial responsibility in the confirmation process.

[SabercatPuck]

Filibusters are a useful and neccessary tool in the legislative proccess. They are an uncnstitutional avoidance of Senatorial responsibility in the confirmation process.
Please expound on your thoughts. since these rules are, unless I am missing something, only set by the Senate, how there is any reason to think that there could ever be a legal challenge for instance, based on not following Senate guidelines

[B' en Natuf]

The Senate has the unfettered authority to make its own rules, those rules however must comport to their actual duties. They cannot make a rule for instance that would negate their responsibility to vote on treaties. They cannot make a rule that wold negate their responsibility to elect a President pro tempore.

The constitution gives them both power and responsibility. They cannot use their power to avoid their reponsibility.


The Senate MUST perform its duty to advise or consent on presidential nominations.

They do not have the power to construct rules to avoid their constitutional responsibilities. The constitutiion does not give them that authority.

On legislation there is absolutely no requirement to even bring any forth, so there is absolutely no reason why it should have to be voted on.

[SabercatPuck]

The Senate has the unfettered authority to make its own rules, those rules however must comport to their actual duties. They cannot make a rule for instance that would negate their responsibility to vote on treaties. They cannot make a rule that wold negate their responsibility to elect a President pro tempore.

The constitution gives them both power and responsibility. They cannot use their power to avoid their reponsibility.


The Senate MUST perform its duty to advise or consent on presidential nominations.

They do not have the power to construct rules to avoid their constitutional responsibilities. The constitutiion does not give them that authority.

On legislation there is absolutely no requirement to even bring any forth, so there is absolutely no reason why it should have to be voted on.
So while possibly considered a breech of ediquete, if they were to go with reconcilliation insteaed of cloture to ram the health care bill through there is not much more than complaining about it that we could do from that standpoint. Of course there is no real need for Republicans to pull a cloture vote anyway, but I guarantee if they decide to throw it away, they should never expect to get filibuster ability back, the parlementary rule book will likely be permanently rewritten without it.

[mawst95]

I posted this in another thread re: health care but maybe would help:

The "nuclear option" refers to a never-before-used argument (made by Republicans when Dems were blocking Judicial nominees a few years ago) that when a new Senate was seated at the beginning of a term, the President of the Senate can change the rules--in this case eliminate the Filibuster.

That, more or less (I'm going from memory) is the "nuclear option." Its use would be unprecedented.

Reid (and some Senate Dems) are threatening to use Reconciliation. Reconciliation is part of the normal rules of the Senate and has been used before. As I understand it, using the reconciliation process allows you to bypass the filibuster and pass a bill on a straight majority vote (rather than the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster). But not every bill can go through the reconciliation process; only bills that directly reduce (or impact) the federal deficit (a budget bill for instance) can use this process.

For your reference, Bush and the GOP congress used reconciliation to pass:

1. 2001 tax cuts
2. 2003 tax cuts
3. Medicare Part D

It was also used by the GOP previously to do welfare reform. Its use isn't unprecedented and, as I've said, was used several times by the most recent GOP-led congress for several controversial bills. (Edit: as an aside, the person that determines whether a specific bill qualifies for reconciliation is the "parliamentarian." When the parliamentarian ruled against the GOP twice in the past few years, the GOP fired him and replaced him with someone that would rule in their favor. Think about that and how you'd react if/when the Dems pull a stunt like that)

One other point I want to make is that the entire health care reform CAN NOT be passed through reconciliation, since many parts of it don't directly impact the deficit. For instance, requiring insurance companies to insure people with preexisting conditions can NOT be passed via reconciliation. HOWEVER, the public option, as it would directly impact the deficit (lower it, actually) could be passed by this process on a straight majority vote. What the Dems would need to do is break the bill up into several parts, needed 60 votes to break a GOP filibuster for some parts, and pass other parts via reconciliation with 51 votes.

Reconciliation and the "nuclear option" have nothing to do with each other.