In 2005 when the Republicans were in power, they threatened to end the filibuster rule and return the Senate to majority rule as the constitution intended. Now the democrats have an even bigger majority than the Republicans did in 2005 and some are considering the nuclear option to put an end to the filibuster rule. Rumor has it that Senator Al Franken and VP Joe Biden are discussing a plan to use it. In 1975 it took 67 votes to break a filibuster and that was reduced to 60. Should it be at least further reduced to 55?
Many Republicans are on record supporting the nuclear option. It will be interesting to see what they say about it this time when the Democrats want to end it.
Do you think the Democrats should end the filibuster and restore majority rule to the Senate?
The procedure for ending the filibuster is as follows (from when the Republicans were in power).
- The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
- At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
- Majority Leader Frist raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
- Vice President Cheney — acting as presiding officer — sustains the point of order.
- A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
- A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
- This vote – to table the appeal – is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
- With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the nominee; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.
They didn’t change from 67to 60. They changed from 2/3 to 60.
They should make it so that the 60 have to hold the floor.
It should not be a requirement that you need 60 votes to pass a bill.
I don’t have a problem with the filibuster as is, since the Democrats are moving too fast, instead of doing the budget, but they should not need more than 50 votes to pass their bill.
What if, instead of being “terrified by progress”, the GOP is opposed to the new laws simply because they disagree with them?
Some Republicans would support (for example) health-care reform if they thought it would actually reform health-care (and not just require health insurance).
Some Democrats are opposed to the proposed health-care bill because they don’t think it goes far enough. Are these Democrats “terrified of progress” ?
The filibuster rule isn’t really an issue – the problem (for the Democrats) is they can’t get 60 votes from their own party right now.
#32 MikeN said, “but they should not need more than 50 votes to pass their bill.”
Not true. The Constitution has the provision that the Vice President cast the deciding vote if there are 50 yea and 50 nay votes. Thus, you need at least 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.
In order for the bill to come to the floor to be voted on in the first place the Senate rules requires 60 votes. The Senate makes their own procedural rules at the beginning of the legislative session (around January). It is just douchebaggery to change the rules in the middle of a session that a majority of the Senate (Democrats) voted for.
In any case, even if they change the rules they still need 51 votes to pass the bill.
#31 Phydeau said, “No Republican dares cross Limbaugh. When they do, he chastises them and they come bowing and scraping to him to apologize. So yes, he’s the most powerful Republican in the country.”
Rush is not in charge of the Republican Party. He’s just a guy with a talk radio show. Did the Republicans come groveling to Rush when he criticized them for spending as if they were Democrats? I don’t think so.
#33 chuck, I think you are right.
Frankly, it is not the filibuster that is the problem, it is the current rules. In the old days you had to actually get up there and talk talk talk. Now its just “we filibuster” and its on.
As it is now, any almost any bill in Congress can be filibustered by procedure. When called for, the Senate votes for cloture to continue.
If they do not get 60 votes, the bill is dead and they move on to other business. Republicans are threatening this now, Democrats threatened this during Bush’s Presidency.
If this version of the filibuster existed in the past (which it did not, you had to keep talking for hours or days), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would probably not have passed.
The minority party in the Senate has, and probably will in the future under either party, have enough “no” votes to stop cloture on anything they wish to filibister. Because of this, the Senate is becoming the part of Congress where obstructionism rules, instead of compromise. If this continues, the ability for the Federal Government to legislate could be at stake as one side obstructs anything important from being passed.
Because the filibuster is not part of the Constitution, and effectively raises the Constitutionally mandated majority vote from 51 to 60 to pass a law, many believe the rule is un-Constitutional. It may be possible to challenge this in a lawsuit against the Federal Government.
Obamas agenda has nothing to do with what’s good for America, which is why he needs to fail. Glad I could clarify.
Getting rid of filibuster would be ok if the rules also changed to require 80 or 90 votes to pass anything involving spending.
#38, Getting rid of filibuster would be ok if the rules also changed to require 80 or 90 votes to pass anything involving spending.
I could support that!
Hey, Toxic. Why you’re swilling your beer and waving “your” flag in people’s faces and thinking that is patriotism, like the other liberals (whose political forefathers, not the like-you retarded conservatives of the colonies, founded the revolutionary idea of democracy here) of our time I’m actually working and showing true patriotism by paying taxes to support the needs of “our” country. Try being a real patriot for once–your type, it’ll make sick. Glad I could clarify.
YES!!
With a potential upset coming in 2010 for the Democrats, I’d be surprised if they nuke this.
#40 – Paying taxes has nothing to do with patriotism. All reasonable people realize that a certain amount of taxation is needed to fund [i]necessary[/i] gov’t expenditures. Judging by my total tax bill, by your reasoning, I’m going way above and beyond and should probably get a medal. Are you donating 100% of your income back to the gov’t? You should be if you’re that patriotic.
If government were only doing what it’s supposed to do and only collecting for that none of us would be complaining.
Phydeau, you’re awesome. I love your posts.
Probably not for the reason you would like, but I love ’em nonetheless.
“Paying taxes has nothing to do with patriotism.” So, love of country is best expressed by waving a piece of cloth and flapping your lips–hey, it’s exercise, if of the jabber variety–instead of providing the needed funding for education, highways, parks, police, libraries…all those things that make our country a country? Well, okay, spending on education has surely been wasted on you and your type, I’ll give you that; say, ever notice all the studies that show the less education you have, the more likely you are to be conservative, and the more education the more liberal? There’s a reason for that. You Retardlickons–you think your fetid fervors and your vile prejudices are the deepest patriotism. And as for incisive commentary? You think you can spout whatever mindless idiocy makes you feel best–you’re that weak, what you need just has to be true–and then self-pleasure yourself with a “glad I could clarify,” as if you’d just completed an Aristotelian proof. So, yes, paying taxes has everything to do with patriotism. And I am glad I could clarify.
Be careful of what you wish for… It will come back and bite you in the ass…
Some of you say, “Sure, do it. Screw the Republicans”, but that will only give the Republicans “justification” to do the same thing to Democrats, when the balance of power swings back their way, and it will, it always does.
#45 KIM
Thank you so much for clarifying. I always like to learn from an obviously bright, educated, and insightful mind. Now that you are the product of all the education that anyone could ask for maybe you can find time to work on that offensive display of superiority. I am sure the classics taught you about hubris.
Just passing along a claim made by others.
The claim is that all votes should be simple majority rule. This makes it easy to pass and repeal choices as the majority view changes. It is claimed that when used this actually produces better results.
Make of it what you will.
Yes, and the anonymous hold should go along with it.
The founders intended for legislation to be voted on, not to be delayed for however long it takes to regain power.
And yes, I pretty much thought this back when my team was not in charge. I liked the fact that they blocked the things they did, but they shouldn’t have been able to. Elections *should* have consequences. The public should be able to move the government in whatever direction it likes and see legislation actually result from that move.
The right wing nuts always seem to have such ignorance about how government actually works.
The 2/3 and then 60 votes is NOT in the Constitution. It is a Senate rule which can be changed at any time under the Senate Rules.
A bill does not require 51 votes to pass, it only requires a majority. That could be 50-49 or even 35-16, as long as the majority of those who voted, voted yes and there was a quorum (I believe 1/2 the Senators + 1, or 51, is the quorum in the Senate) . If the vote is tied, the Vice-President casts the deciding vote. That is in the Constitution.
The term “filibuster” means to delay. This includes talking it to death but also includes adding hundreds of amendments and demanding full discussions and debate on each, using procedural motions repeatedly, and other tactics designed to delay the business of the Senate.
The House also has types of filibuster available but the Speaker has more control and can rule much of the delaying tactics out of order.
As Marc pointed out above, filibuster is used by the minority to control the majority. An excellent example is California where the Budget needs a super majority so the minority can shut the government down by simply voting against every majority budget. Hence, nothing gets done.
We elect representatives to Congress to get work done. Having the Republicans shut down the Senate, and really the whole legislative branch, is undemocratic.
Let’s compromise. Keep the 60 vote rule but require Senators to physically be present and speaking on the floor 24/7 if they want to filibuster, and permit no other legislation of any kind to go through the Senate until the filibuster is resolved.
But maybe I’m too nostalgic. The Senate is no longer the world’s greatest deliberative body. It is broken. Forget the BS about the comity of the Senate, about gentlemanly debate, etc. The Senate has become a special interest cockfight and the Senators are themselves merely the roosters.
#51, The Senate is no longer the world’s greatest deliberative body. It is broken.
The Senate is supposed to represent the States. It is there to ensure the States keep their Rights in the face of a burgeoning federal government.
The House is supposed to represent the People. It is there to let the government know what the People want. Hence a two-year term — fresh faces, fresh ideas.
That is why the Senators were selected by the States and the House reps selected by the People.
Thus, you had a check against near-total democracy and tyranny — a Republic.
However, since Senators are now elected by the People as well, you no longer have that check. You have two bodies that more or less operate the same way, bowing to the whims of the mob to get re-elected.
I agree. It is broken.