Prometheus 6

Quote of note:

During a floor speech, addressing the Democratic filibusters of controversial judicial nominees, Frist said: Right now, we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate Rule 22 and do not acquiesce to carrying over all the rules from the last Congress.

Rule 22, adopted by the Senate in 1917 and later modified, enables senators to limit extended debate, the polite term for filibusters, by a vote of three-fifths of the entire chamber, or 60 senators. The rule is routinely invoked by the majority leader when a senator or a group of senators attempts to stall a vote.

Frist aims nuke at the Dems
By Alexander Bolton

Little-noticed remarks delivered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) at the start of the new Congress have stirred debate over their implication for lawmakers’ ability to filibuster controversial legislation and nominations.

A few of Frist’s conservative allies are interpreting his Jan. 4 comments to mean that Rule 22, which establishes the ground rules for filibusters, is not in effect for the new session of Congress. The uncertainty leaves it unclear whether all filibusters, including filibusters of legislation, could be dispensed with by a mere majority vote or the agreement of all senators present in the chamber unanimous consent would be needed to move forward on even the most controversial business.

---

Thing is, I don't think Frist can do it.

I stumbled across something at Venable LLP

As one of The American Lawyer's top 100 law firms, Venable LLP has lawyers practicing in all areas of corporate and business law, complex litigation, intellectual property and government affairs. Venable serves corporate, institutional, governmental, nonprofit and individual clients throughout the U.S. and around the world from its base of operations in and around Washington, DC. Founded more than a century ago, Venable has enjoyed a long history of steady growth, quality service and sound management.

I'll admit I never heard of these guys but they got K-Street cred, know what I'm saying?

Anyway, they've put together a couple-three pages on filibusters that provides plausibly honorable reasons to try to jack Rule 22. here's how filibusters got their start:

Article I of the Constitution established the Congress of the United States and vested the legislative powers of the Federal government in that body. Section 5 of Article I specified that "Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings…" and the Senate and the House each adopted its own set of rules shortly after the first Congress convened. While each chamber had a somewhat different set of procedural rules, they both incorporated a motion to end debate on a particular matter if a majority of members supported "moving the previous question." In 1806, however, the Senate adopted a new set of rules governing proceedings in that body which did not incorporate the previous question motion and thereby left the Senate in the unique position of having no procedural device to bring any debate to a conclusion. This "missing rule" in the 1806 revisions would eventually lead to the use of the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic in the Senate.

And here's why it look to me like Frist and the Republicans (don't that sound like a doo-wop group?) can't unilaterally make that change:

It is likely that if it is brought up, Democratic opponents of S.Res.138 will point to another peculiarity in paragraph 2 of Rule XXII which requires motions to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate be supported by two-thirds, or 67, Senators "present and voting;" an almost impossible threshold to meet in a deeply divided Senate.

That's the same standard required to break a filibuster. If they can't do one I doubt they can do the other.