Sunday, May 22, 2005
A constitutional compromise:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
And Senate Rule V declares that these rules are perpetual: “The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.”
A Senator could raise a point of order that a vote must be taken. A motion to table operates. The motion is non-debatable—the Senate must take an immediate vote on it—and it serves as a final disposition of the underlying question.
The Presiding Officer could rule in favor of the point of order, and a majority could table any appeal from his ruling. This would establish a precedent limiting the length of time for debate that would bind all future Senates (until the precedent were overturned by majority vote or unanimous consent).
Finally, the Senate could adopt a Standing Order altering the Senate’s procedures, including the procedures governing debate. The number of votes to close debate on circuit court judges nominations would be 4/7 or 57 (or 5/9 is 55) instead of 60 or 3/5. Standing Orders are not incorporated into the text of the Standing Rules, but nonetheless bind the Senate. For example, in December 2000, the Senate adopted a standing order limiting members’ ability to filibuster conference reports. The order provided that members could no longer demand the reading of conference reports that were available in writing. Similarly, a current Senate could adopt a Standing Order having the effect of limiting time for debate with fewer votes but more than 51 but less than 60.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
And Senate Rule V declares that these rules are perpetual: “The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.”
A Senator could raise a point of order that a vote must be taken. A motion to table operates. The motion is non-debatable—the Senate must take an immediate vote on it—and it serves as a final disposition of the underlying question.
The Presiding Officer could rule in favor of the point of order, and a majority could table any appeal from his ruling. This would establish a precedent limiting the length of time for debate that would bind all future Senates (until the precedent were overturned by majority vote or unanimous consent).
Finally, the Senate could adopt a Standing Order altering the Senate’s procedures, including the procedures governing debate. The number of votes to close debate on circuit court judges nominations would be 4/7 or 57 (or 5/9 is 55) instead of 60 or 3/5. Standing Orders are not incorporated into the text of the Standing Rules, but nonetheless bind the Senate. For example, in December 2000, the Senate adopted a standing order limiting members’ ability to filibuster conference reports. The order provided that members could no longer demand the reading of conference reports that were available in writing. Similarly, a current Senate could adopt a Standing Order having the effect of limiting time for debate with fewer votes but more than 51 but less than 60.
