Legislation does not need 60 votes to pass in the Senate

shootemwon
shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
edited July 2010 in The Social Lounge
And Republicans ain't been filibustering ? .


The Senate Democrats are just ? .





That is all.

Comments

  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    True, they don't need 60. But then that means legislation passes via Reconciliation.

    Reconciliation is not a popular move. Never has been.

    No, you don't need reconciliation to pass with a simple majority. You need 51 votes to pass legislation. You only need 60 votes to shut down a filibuster, but like I said, the Republicans haven't filibustered anything.
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    no doubt...that's why I deleted my post, once I thought about the budget only contingency on Reconciliation

    but what specific bills you talk of? I would think that Dems pretty much know in advance, from talk in Congressional circles and sects, which bills the Repubs plan to filibuster

    Well, for example, in Spring 2009, the healthcare bill, which would have included a public option, was very popular with the public, and the House could always pass it, but the whole thing was stalled by the Senate who claimed "OMFGZ FILIBUSTER!!!! WE NEED 60 VOTES TO PASS THIS!!!"

    I guess it never occurred to them to actually make the Republicans filibuster the bill rather than just cower in a corner at the mere threat of a filibuster. We would have pressured moderates into supporting the bill a year earlier if we had called their bluff and said "If you're gonna hold up the bill with filibuster, you have to actually do it."

    If I was Harry Reid, I would have kept the Senate in session 24-7. Never stop running the bill. Own the news cycle nonstop. YET AGAIN, REPUBLICANS OBSTRUCT WITH THE FILIBUSTER. Remember what public opinion was like in Spring 2009, this was before the tea party ? and town hall charades. Lieberman and Nelson, possibly Collins and Snowe, would have buckled under pressure and we would have gotten HCR in 2009 WITH a public option.
  • BethlehemBill
    BethlehemBill Members Posts: 140
    edited July 2010
    shootemwon wrote: »
    Well, for example, in Spring 2009, the healthcare bill, which would have included a public option, was very popular with the public, and the House could always pass it, but the whole thing was stalled by the Senate who claimed "OMFGZ FILIBUSTER!!!! WE NEED 60 VOTES TO PASS THIS!!!"

    I guess it never occurred to them to actually make the Republicans filibuster the bill rather than just cower in a corner at the mere threat of a filibuster. We would have pressured moderates into supporting the bill a year earlier if we had called their bluff and said "If you're gonna hold up the bill with filibuster, you have to actually do it."

    If I was Harry Reid, I would have kept the Senate in session 24-7. Never stop running the bill. Own the news cycle nonstop. YET AGAIN, REPUBLICANS OBSTRUCT WITH THE FILIBUSTER. Remember what public opinion was like in Spring 2009, this was before the tea party ? and town hall charades. Lieberman and Nelson, possibly Collins and Snowe, would have buckled under pressure and we would have gotten HCR in 2009 WITH a public option.

    lol 24/7? how about working a full year first. as millions of americans are unemployed and face financial ruin, congress gets ready for summer vacation aug 3 to sept 4. i wonder how many other americans wish they could just take a month off right now, after all times are tough, gotta just take a break for a while.



    (^^^ yes populist anger post)
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    lol 24/7? how about working a full year first. as millions of americans are unemployed and face financial ruin, congress gets ready for summer vacation aug 3 to sept 4. i wonder how many other americans wish they could just take a month off right now, after all times are tough, gotta just take a break for a while.



    (^^^ yes populist anger post)

    dont derail my thread ?
  • whar67
    whar67 Members Posts: 542
    edited July 2010
    Several filibusters have been broken in Senate. The most recent was over the extention of unemployment benefits.

    The concept of forcing open debate 24/7 is flawed. It does not work. To pass a vote in the senate the senate must first vote to end debate. This vote requires 60 votes to pass. If Reid forces debate to remain open the Republicans would go home and go to sleep except one of them. This one guy would hold open debate by his mere presense. If Reid tried to call the question this one guy ask for a vote to end debate, it would fail. The next day a new Republican would handle this duty. It is trivial to maintain a filibuster in the senate if you have 41 votes. Reid is not an idiot and does not go for empty theatrics.
  • blatin35
    blatin35 Members Posts: 176
    edited July 2010
    shootemwon wrote: »
    Well, for example, in Spring 2009, the healthcare bill, which would have included a public option, was very popular with the public, and the House could always pass it, but the whole thing was stalled by the Senate who claimed "OMFGZ FILIBUSTER!!!! WE NEED 60 VOTES TO PASS THIS!!!"

    I guess it never occurred to them to actually make the Republicans filibuster the bill rather than just cower in a corner at the mere threat of a filibuster. We would have pressured moderates into supporting the bill a year earlier if we had called their bluff and said "If you're gonna hold up the bill with filibuster, you have to actually do it."

    If I was Harry Reid, I would have kept the Senate in session 24-7. Never stop running the bill. Own the news cycle nonstop. YET AGAIN, REPUBLICANS OBSTRUCT WITH THE FILIBUSTER. Remember what public opinion was like in Spring 2009, this was before the tea party ? and town hall charades. Lieberman and Nelson, possibly Collins and Snowe, would have buckled under pressure and we would have gotten HCR in 2009 WITH a public option.

    I thought there was an issue with some "blue dog" democrats that didn't want to vote in favor of the public option.
  • DarcSkies777
    DarcSkies777 Members Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2010
    shootemwon wrote: »
    And Republicans ain't been filibustering ? .


    The Senate Democrats are just ? .





    That is all.
    It needs 60 votes under this congress. THe problem is you need 60 votes to get rid of the 60 vote rule LOL

    Secondly, the DEMS are ? .
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    whar67 wrote: »
    Several filibusters have been broken in Senate. The most recent was over the extention of unemployment benefits.

    The concept of forcing open debate 24/7 is flawed. It does not work. To pass a vote in the senate the senate must first vote to end debate. This vote requires 60 votes to pass. If Reid forces debate to remain open the Republicans would go home and go to sleep except one of them. This one guy would hold open debate by his mere presense. If Reid tried to call the question this one guy ask for a vote to end debate, it would fail. The next day a new Republican would handle this duty. It is trivial to maintain a filibuster in the senate if you have 41 votes. Reid is not an idiot and does not go for empty theatrics.

    What filibuster? There haven't been any filibusters since Obama took office.

    Post a youtube video of the Republicans filibustering during the current term of Congress or admit you're a lying ? .
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    It needs 60 votes under this congress. THe problem is you need 60 votes to get rid of the 60 vote rule LOL

    Secondly, the DEMS are ? .

    No you don't. You need 51 votes to pass legislation. You need 60 votes to shut down a filibuster, which only becomes and issue if the minority chooses to filibuster. They never have, because Reid only runs legislation when he has 60 votes to back it up. This isn't about actual filibusters, it's about the THREAT of a filibuster and ? like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln who don't want Reid to run a bill that might actually face a filibuster.
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2010
    It needs 60 votes under this congress. THe problem is you need 60 votes to get rid of the 60 vote rule LOL

    smh, the senate is a muhfucka
  • DarcSkies777
    DarcSkies777 Members Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2010
    shootemwon wrote: »
    No you don't. You need 51 votes to pass legislation. You need 60 votes to shut down a filibuster, which only becomes and issue if the minority chooses to filibuster. They never have, because Reid only runs legislation when he has 60 votes to back it up. This isn't about actual filibusters, it's about the THREAT of a filibuster and ? like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln who don't want Reid to run a bill that might actually face a filibuster.

    I thought filibusters were procedural now.

    U mean to tell me these muthafukkas been folding under the THREAT of a filibuster?

    Please show me proof. Can u find the Senate rules? Cuz I dont get why they dont just say, "stand your ass up for 48 hours if you can"
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    I thought filibusters were procedural now.

    U mean to tell me these muthafukkas been folding under the THREAT of a filibuster?

    Please show me proof. Can u find the Senate rules? Cuz I dont get why they dont just say, "stand your ass up for 48 hours if you can"

    Look for video of the Republicans ACTUALLY FILIBUSTERING MAJOR LEGISLATION?

    There was no filibuster on HCR

    There was no filibuster on Wall Street Regulation

    There was no filibuster on the (still unpassed) Climate Bill
  • whar67
    whar67 Members Posts: 542
    edited July 2010
    Shootemwon I do not know if you are trying to be funny or just need a civics class. In 2008 - 2009 the senate stages 112 votes of cloture. That is the vote needed to end debate and move to a vote. A vote of cloture requires 60 votes to pass. That 112 represenst more than 1/6th of all the votes taken by the senate. You seem hung up on someone being on the floor talking and talking but a filibuster is simply NOT ending debate. Following Watergate the senate voted through a series of reforms. For filibusters they moved them 67 votes to end debate to 60 and invoked the silent filibuster rules. The silent filibuster now only requires rollcalls ... no one actually has to debate. So long as no cloture vote passes the 'debate' goes on.

    www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/tyranny-of-the-silent-fil_b_366367.html

    The last 'old school' filibuster occured in 1986 by Alfonse D’Amato.
  • DarcSkies777
    DarcSkies777 Members Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2010
    whar67 wrote: »
    Shootemwon I do not know if you are trying to be funny or just need a civics class. In 2008 - 2009 the senate stages 112 votes of cloture. That is the vote needed to end debate and move to a vote. A vote of cloture requires 60 votes to pass. That 112 represenst more than 1/6th of all the votes taken by the senate. You seem hung up on someone being on the floor talking and talking but a filibuster is simply NOT ending debate. Following Watergate the senate voted through a series of reforms. For filibusters they moved them 67 votes to end debate to 60 and invoked the silent filibuster rules. The silent filibuster now only requires rollcalls ... no one actually has to debate. So long as no cloture vote passes the 'debate' goes on.

    www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/tyranny-of-the-silent-fil_b_366367.html

    The last 'old school' filibuster occured in 1986 by Alfonse D’Amato.
    Yeah...thanks.

    I knew even the Democrats werent THAT spineless.
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2010
    I never liked the idea of lowering it to 51. It may seem tempting, but the 60 vote threshold stopped dumb GOP ideas like OIL DRILLING in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge (safe! we promise!) and will make repealing "Obamacare" nigh-impossible. It's short-sighted in my view, and mostly pushed by people who try to tell me that "If the Democrats can just pass ______, their majorities will be safe". Pardon me for being skeptical of that assessment.
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    whar67 wrote: »
    Shootemwon I do not know if you are trying to be funny or just need a civics class. In 2008 - 2009 the senate stages 112 votes of cloture. That is the vote needed to end debate and move to a vote. A vote of cloture requires 60 votes to pass. That 112 represenst more than 1/6th of all the votes taken by the senate. You seem hung up on someone being on the floor talking and talking but a filibuster is simply NOT ending debate. Following Watergate the senate voted through a series of reforms. For filibusters they moved them 67 votes to end debate to 60 and invoked the silent filibuster rules. The silent filibuster now only requires rollcalls ... no one actually has to debate. So long as no cloture vote passes the 'debate' goes on.

    www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/tyranny-of-the-silent-fil_b_366367.html

    The last 'old school' filibuster occured in 1986 by Alfonse D’Amato.
    Vdeo of Republicans filibustering legislation?
    They haven't actually done it. Those cloture votes would mean they're actually shutting down filibusters, which they aren't. They're just doing those cloture votes on minor procedural ? .

    I guess I'm referring to what you call and "oldschool filibuster" where the majority party forces the obstructionists to stand up and continue talking.

    Also, since the only thing I asked you to do was post a youtube video of republicans filibustering and you didn't, you admit to being a lying ? . Debate over.
  • whar67
    whar67 Members Posts: 542
    edited July 2010
    Cloture votes are the soul of the filibuster. They bring debate to a close and move the bill to vote. The majority can NO longer force the minority to continue talking. They have not had those rules for over 30 years.

    I do not accuse you of 'lying' but you are very misinformed regarding filibusters and clotures. Here are the senate rules (opr atleast a PDF provided by the senate to explain them)

    http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APLW%3D%22P%20%20%0A

    Among the interesting rules are 'The Senate does not vote on this cloture motion until the second day of session after the motion is made.' That is after the 16 senator submit the motion to end the filibuster (actually debate) the vote occurs 2 days LATER! So long as that vote fails the bill can not be approved. No one has to talk about the bill during this period. The bill can only be moved to the approval step by ananimous consent or by the cloture process.

    The version of a filibuster you are thinking of died out in the 60s. Now the only ones to do this are single senators with an axe to grind. Alfonse D’Amato was one such Senator.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156686,00.html

    I realize it is hard to admit you were mistaken but senate procedural rules are pretty arcane so it is no big deal.
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    You still haven't posted a youtube video of Republicans filibustering so your admission of lying and faggotry stands. Thanks.
  • whar67
    whar67 Members Posts: 542
    edited July 2010
    shootemwon wrote: »
    You still haven't posted a youtube video of Republicans filibustering so your admission of lying and faggotry stands. Thanks.

    I will assume you are just trying to save face and are not genuinely ? stupid.
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited July 2010
    whar67 wrote: »
    I will assume you are just trying to save face and are not genuinely ? stupid.

    I won't assume the same about you. You are genuinely ? stupid, and I'm sure you now realize this after scouring youtube for a video that will prove me wrong, to no avail.