NEW BLOG: The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and filibustering in the House of Lords
@lisajames.bsky.social looks at how delay tactics work in the Lords, and what peers could do to stop individuals using procedure to block bills.
😁
BTW, this process is the dumbest statutory expedited procedure there is, and that’s saying a lot. Did you notice that Massie submitted a concurrent resolution, and Kaine introduced a joint resolution...?
www.congress.gov/crs_external...
The Senate has really desensitised me to this sort of thing. 🙂
These illustrations are very nice too.
Some great stuff from Byrd on the talking filibuster:
It's time for another edition of…
"How do these things end?"™
Today: What if the House passes a bill, the Senate agrees but with amendments, then the House agrees to the Senate amendments did but with amendments, and then the Senate agrees to all the House amendments to the Senate amendments…
1/
Once one house ignores this rule (by special rule or unanimous consent), all bets are off. This instance ⬇️ was apparently considered so scandalous that the page it’s on was omitted from GPO’s PDFs of Riddick’s.
🧾
Fun fact: If the House had sent this over in the form of a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill, then no further amendments would be in order in the Senate.
I get the sense from all these discussions that for a lot of senators, the filibuster has nothing to do with the freedom to debate and offer amendments; they just think it should take 60 votes to pass a bill.
Not a novel sentiment, I guess.
Tabling amendments is breaking the filibuster now?
It makes no difference. This is certainly just a procedural thing; they could have picked any nomination to do it.
Theories:
1. Someone finally figured out that debate is technically not in order when there is no question pending.
2. They want to block senators from moving to proceed to another nomination or, more likely, to a previously entered motion to reconsider a cloture vote.
As far as I can tell, the most recent instance was, indeed, before my time.
Woah woah woah...
A motion to proceed to a nomination?!
I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these (live) before.
"I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but ah sod it he’s over there yes that one there”
The version of the rule originally reported by the Rules Committee would have required a two-thirds vote to agree to a nongermane Senate amendment!
TIL: In the House, from 1971 to 1974, a member could demand a separate vote on any nongermane part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute to a House bill.
Expand the House! (without expanding the chamber)
hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1943...
The ROTOR Act
NB: The rejection of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill does not mean that the bill has been defeated.
*That* is why when the House elects its officers, the minority offers an amendment to the resolution to substitute its nominees.
(It has to be in those specific terms; simple recognition, congratulations etc are not enough.)
Not many (any?) people qualify. It’s not something Congress really does anymore.
Yep
They have floor privileges.
The vote was closed unusually promptly; it probably would have passed if all members were present.
A senator could have objected to adopting the resolution providing for the joint session.
