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.
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.