Pleading idiocy, I beg for help.

[whometense]

Does one of you brilliant people understand this whole thing about the democrats bringing up their own agenda? And if so, would you mind explaining it to me?

It seems like Dorothy's ruby slippers, a bit. If they've always had this power, why haven't they used it before now?

And if they haven't had the power before, how do they now have it?

Why are the repugs allowing them to proceed, as it's clearly meant to make them look bad, even if only as a fringe benefit?

I thank you for your patience in advance. :-)

[TayTay]

1. Technical reply (Dull as dishwater)

Scheduling Legislative Business

Senate business includes legislative business (bills and resolutions) and executive business (nominations and treaties). (The Senate also sits as a court to try impeachments, for which a special, separate set of rules applies.) When introduced or received from the House or the President, legislative or executive business is normally referred to the committee with appropriate jurisdiction. Business is placed on the legislative or executive calendar, and becomes available for floor consideration, if the committee reports it.

The Senate accords its majority leader prime responsibility for scheduling. He may carry out this responsibility by moving that the Senate proceed to consider a particular matter. By precedent, he and the minority leader are recognized preferentially, and by custom only he (or his designee) makes motions or requests affecting when the Senate will meet and what it will consider.

For executive business, this motion to proceed may be offered in a nondebatable form, but for legislative business it usually is debatable. Whenever possible, therefore, the majority leader instead calls up bills and resolutions by unanimous consent. If Senators object to unanimous consent to take up a measure, they are implicitly threatening to filibuster a motion to consider it. They may do so because they oppose that measure, or in the hope of influencing action on some other matter.

Senators can even place a "hold" on a measure or nomination, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules. "Holds" are requests by Senators to their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any request to consider a matter, at least until they have been consulted. The majority leader will usually not even request consent to consider a measure if there is a hold on it.

Senate rules also permit a measure to be placed directly on the calendar when introduced or received from the House. This process permits Senators to bypass referral to a committee they believe unsympathetic. Alternatively, if a committee fails to report a measure, a new measure with exactly the same provisions may be introduced and placed directly on the calendar.

Finally, Senate rules do not require that amendments be germane or relevant, except to general appropriation bills, budget measures, and matters under cloture (and a few other bills, pursuant to statutes). Consequently, if a committee fails to report a measure, a Senator may offer its text as an amendment

From: The standing Rules (Yawn) of the Senate http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm#3

[TayTay]

2. What? What does that mean. And why are we bringing it up?

The Senate is a strange place. (And I really, really like you Whome. I listened to both Allen and Lamar today and I nearly went insane. There are very few humans I would go into the Standing Rules of the Senate for, even fewer after an Allen/Lamar day. You are one of them.)

The Senate is a very, very, very formal place. It functions pretty much on these odd 'Gentleman's Rules' of unanimous consent and 'My Esteemed Colleague' and that kind of stuff around the clock. The Senate greatly prizes precedence, which means 'How Things Have Run Before.' By custom, the Majority Leader gets to say what the legislative agenda is and what will be placed on the docket for review and whatnot. Why? Because the Senate does it that way. Because that's the way it's always been done. And it ticks them off if you try and change the rules without prior written consent from the Founding Fathers. (And Robert Byrd will get mad at you. He really is a sweet guy, but he knows his history cold. Don't try and get on his bad side by moving things around. He will find out and come after you.)

If the Majority Leader decides to go with the Nuclear Option again and blowup the judicial filibuster, then the 'Gentleman's Agreement' that the Majority Leader gets to say what goes on the agenda goes away. (It is a custom, not a law.) Then the whole nature of the Senate changes from being that sometimes snooze fest of unanimous consent agreements and deference to a free-for-all. No one actually knows what would happen because it hasn't happened before. But it might be highly entertaining. (The Senate is an entmoot. This is my gratuitous LOTR reference. It takes a long time to say anything in the Senate and they never say anything that isn't worth taking a long time. Especially Lamar. He is the dullest man on the planet.) I am a bit fried today, so this will have to do, unless someone with more active grey matter can do better. (There are at least dozens in this group who can do better than me, but I gave it a shot.)

[whometense]

3. No, that was just great.

Thank you!! And I'm oh-so-fried too, but as crazy as senate debate makes me, not understaning what's going on makes me crazier.

I was following today's cloture vote intently, and at the end still didn't know what had happened! I heard Frist vote "Yes", then immediately ask for the whole question to be reconsidered, then stand and grouse a bit. Then I saw Reid stand up and try (not quite successfully) to hide his exultation.

Then all of a sudden all these second-tier dem senators are yakking about this 'n' that. I tell you, it gives me whiplash. I know it's been a very trying day, and I appreciate all the more your explanation. :hug:

I did figure out one thing today. After Byrd read his Memorial Day poem (I do love the guy, but oh my god) and I listened to Stevens yammer on and on about Byrd's courtship of his wife of 68 years I felt a brief temptation to put myself out of my misery. I now understand the custom of vacating the premises while other senators are talking.

[TayTay]

4. Yeah, the Senate is best in small doses

It has that mysterious power to cloud your mind sometimes. And today's debate was entirely miss-able. (Entirely) Even John Kerry was bored with it and didn't really want to speak, but did so out of obligation. (Heck, he filed the rest of his speech at the desk and said, "Screw this. If you folks don't know the arguments by now, you're just not paying attention and I can't help you."

Cloture means cutting off debate, eventually. (Well, if you cut off debate then you might get 30 more hours, you might not. I think there's this big wheel in the back cloakroom somewhere and they spin it and whatever number it lands on is how many more hours you get to talk after cloture is invoked.) Unless you don't. (Cuz sometimes cloture means debate stops and we vote.) Now pay attention, this gets weird.

Sen. Frist is extremely upset that cloture wasn't invoked and the scintillating Senate debate about John Bolton gets to go on. (Does Amnesty International know about this? I secretly think they tape Senate debates with Lamar and Allen in them and play them for prisoners. Torture indeed.) Sen. Frist is pissed that the Dems are filibustering the Bolton nomination. (He's so pissed that he voted FOR cloture. Ahm, because he could? I don't know why. He was tired? He forgot he was a Rethug? He decided to show some spine to the White House? You got me.)

The Dems claim they are not filibustering the Bolton nom, because they are waaaay too sweet to do that just 2 days after the whole judicial nuclear option thing happened. So they are technically, technically filibustering, but they are deriving no joy from it and promise to stop it as soon as the White House stops being pissy and comes across with the NSA intercepts.

Sen. Frist has decided that he has had enough of this filibuster stuff and has decided to bring up the Rethug Judges from Hell for early June and is filing cloture motions on them as a pre-emptive measure. (You have to file a notice of a vote for cloture 24 hours in advance of the vote. Cuz it's the Senate and if it was easy anyone could do it.) So, when the Dems get back they can look forward to angry Rethugs accusing them of filibustering Bolton and the actual threat of having to confirm Rethug horrors as Judges and going through cloture votes on them. (And the Mod Squad promised that they wouldn't filibuster because it messes up the furniture and stuff.) And they are filibustering Bolton (shhhhh!) only they don't actually mean it. Clear? And Sen. Frist voted AGAINST cloture today, then had a big hissy fit cause cloture failed. They need a vacation.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00129

[whometense]

5. hahahahaha

And they are filibustering Bolton (shhhhh!) only they don't actually mean it. Clear? And Sen. Frist voted AGAINST cloture today, then had a big hissy fit cause cloture failed. They need a vacation.

Yeah. Think they'll come back in a different mood? I do get the impression they're all heartily sick of each other. I never appreciated before how MUCH TIME they spend in each others' company. Fine if you get along, but when things are tense - YOW.

I keep missing Kerry avoiding McCain, too. Seeing that would give me satisfaction, though it pains me that he was able to hurt John that much.