Filibuster Roulette

The Democrats have sent a bill, introduced by Tom Harkin, to the floor of the Senate proposing to end the filibuster as we know it, a procedure that, while not written into the Constitution, has nevertheless been there since not long after the founding of the Republic.  The filibuster actually goes back much further, and was used by Roman Senators to stall legislation they didn't like, but, in modern practice, filibusters are handled under Rule 22 of the Senate, which does not require holding the floor to be successful.  Although, at the present time, 67 votes are actually required to change Senate rules, a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (U.S. v. Ballin) stated that changes to Senate rules can be achieved by a simple majority. From that ruling:

The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house in in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6]   member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.

NOTE:  Reference is from Findlaw.

You can read more on the history of filibusters here.

The rule now which is about to be introduced would require 60 votes on the first vote, 57 votes on the next vote, then, respectively, 53, and 51.  After that, all that is required is a simple majority.  This change would effective render Rule 22 useless, but the traditional method of filibustering, that is, holding the floor by speaking, will still exist. 

Republicans are, naturally, up in arms over this proposed change in the rules, while Democrats are maintaining that an up or down vote on issues is what is needed.  Does this sound familiar?  In 2005, Republicans threatened the "nuclear option", which would have consisted of doing away with the filibuster entirely in the case of Supreme Court appointments by then President Bush.  Their argument? An up or down vote.  Now that the roles are reversed, Republicans are crying "foul".  But they are the ones who threatened to end filibustering for judges in 2005, and the Democrats, no doubt, remember that.

You reap what you sow.  I thought the nuclear option was a terrible idea 5 years ago, and I believe it's  equivalent, that is being proposed today, is just as bad.  By threating the nuclear option in 2005, Republicans opened Pandora's Box.

Just a thought - Is it too much to ask for Republicans and Democrats to stop the bickering and gamesmanship, and get to the business of doing what's right for America?  You be the judge, at the ballot box, when the next election rolls around.