Filibusters, silent filibusters, and holds -How they work. (Make Reid end the silent filibuster)

[Are_grits_groceries]

Holds are an informal device unique to the upper body. They permit a single Senator or any number of Senators to stop—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently—floor consideration of measures or matters that are available to be scheduled by the Senate.

A hold, in brief, is a request by a Senator to his or her party leader to delay floor action on a measure or matter. It is up to the majority leader to decide whether, or for how long, he will honor a colleague’s hold. Scheduling the business of the Senate is the fundamental prerogative of the majority leader, and it is done in consultation with the minority leader.
<snip>
Potency of Holds
Holds are a potent blocking device because they are linked to the Senate’s tradition of extended debate and unanimous consent agreements. Party leaders understand that to ignore holds could precipitate objections to unanimous consent requests and filibusters.

Unlike filibusters, which may be partly educational in their purpose and which are televised nationally over C-SPAN, holds require no public utterance. Little surprise that holds are sometimes referred to as a “silent filibuster.”

Articles 7 and 9 at the following site have a lot of information.

http://www.senate.gov/general/search/search_cfm.cfm?q=silent+filibuster&site=default_collection&num=10&filter=0&x=11&y=8

I want a real filibuster, and I want to see the Rethugs + Joe stay there 24/7 reading the phone book or whatever.

[elocs]

1. "The Myth Of The Filibuster: Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night"

Our wants and hopes need to meet reality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

Hoping for a C-SPAN spectacle of GOP obstruction, some impatient Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to call Republicans on their filibuster bluff.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a plea typical of the genre, recently telling Politico that Reid should force Republicans into a filibustering talk-a-thon, "so that the American people can see who's undermining action." By threatening a filibuster, the shrunken bloc of 41 GOP senators has just enough members to prevent a vote, requiring Democrats to make concessions to pick off a few moderate Republicans.

Reid has heard the calls. But his answer will surely disappoint: Sorry. It can't happen. Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along. As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Thanks. nt

[elocs]

3. I depend a lot upon what Bob Dove said since he was a Senate parliamentarian for 35 years

and it says that he "knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet" and he says that the Reid analysis is "exactly correct."