On filibusters

[LordBrownTrout]

Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.

Why?

 

[StevenC]

What is wrong with one man/women, one vote?

Like the votes that have banned gay marraige?

 

[Wiseacre]

The idea behind requiring a 66 vote majority was to preclude a majority party from trampling all over the minority. When the democrats lowered it to 60 they intended to allow themselves to do exactly that. By doing so they increased their chances to ignore the repubs, as they did with the ACA.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.

Why?

I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.

 

[Wiseacre]

Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.

Why?

I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.

LOL, you guys think ANYTHING would get done?

 

[StevenC]

Why?

I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.

LOL, you guys think ANYTHING would get done?

What is necessary would get done and all the waste would finally get tossed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why?

I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.

LOL, you guys think ANYTHING would get done?

A balanced budget and clearing the debt is all I care about. If they never passed another bill in my lifetime I wouldnt care.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?

Filibusters no longer serve any purpose, other than to impose a de facto supermajority requirement on every single piece of legislation introduced in the chamber.

Nonsense. Filibusters serve the same purpose they have always served, they force the majority party to compromise. There would be far fewer filibusters if Reid allowed Republican amendments to come to a vote, but his consistent refusal to compromise has forced Republicans to threaten filibusters to stop bills from going to a vote before they have had a chance to be heard in order to promote the policies their supporters elected them to support. If Reid is successful in preventing Republican, and a few Democratic, senators, from doing the job their constituents sent to Congress to do, the cause will be taken up by the Republican House and gridlock will continue.

It would serve the whole country better if Reid and McConnell came to informal agreements on each contentious bill on how many Republican amendments would be allowed to come to votes before the entire bill reached the floor, but Reid like Obama is a partisan hack who is more interested in politics than in progress so he has chosen this way to stoke divisive partisan feelings rather than to look for ways to move the nation's business forward.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The idea behind requiring a 66 vote majority was to preclude a majority party from trampling all over the minority. When the democrats lowered it to 60 they intended to allow themselves to do exactly that. By doing so they increased their chances to ignore the repubs, as they did with the ACA.

I get that; that said our government is gridlocked by ideology. The American voter, generally, won't abide by extreme changes and sets a course correction, seemingly every year.

[I don't know that the R's were ignored; clearly they were opposed to the idea of health care reform ideologically. The harsh rhetoric (Communism! Socialism!) from the right and even elected officials pretty much effected the R's ability to provide mature and responsible input into the need for health care reform in our nation.]

If the majority of the American voters were displeased by Obamacare, Romney's promise to repeal it on day one would have carried the day. Honest and educated people understood that Obamacare is not socialized medicine, that reform to our system of health care was necessary and voted to continue it (Obamacare).

If in 2016 Obamacare is a failure, the R's will carry the day and try to repeal it. If the Senate rules continue unabated, however, now that the Supreme Court has rule upon it, Obamacare will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If it carries out its promises, even those opposed may learn to love it. However, those who feel their Golden Goose has been murdered will continue to work their ways with the Members of Congress they own.

Paying for it is the concern. It is up to Congress and the President to come to agreement on taxes, spending and priorities. But, that requires compromise and it appears that the most radical Republicans consider compromised to be the works of a RINO.

 

[longknife]

There hasn't been a "real" fillibuster in decades!

It's all play-acting.The truth is that the Senate Dictator Dingy Harry does everything possible to get his way and will brook no one opposing him.

I suggest we give him a roman toga with purple stripes to wear when he goes into the well of the Senate to speak.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why?

I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.

LOL, you guys think ANYTHING would get done?

The important stuff would, and there would be a lot fewer boondoggles like Solyndra.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The idea behind requiring a 66 vote majority was to preclude a majority party from trampling all over the minority. When the democrats lowered it to 60 they intended to allow themselves to do exactly that. By doing so they increased their chances to ignore the repubs, as they did with the ACA.

I get that; that said our government is gridlocked by ideology. The American voter, generally, won't abide by extreme changes and sets a course correction, seemingly every year.

[I don't know that the R's were ignored; clearly they were opposed to the idea of health care reform ideologically. The harsh rhetoric (Communism! Socialism!) from the right and even elected officials pretty much effected the R's ability to provide mature and responsible input into the need for health care reform in our nation.]

If the majority of the American voters were displeased by Obamacare, Romney's promise to repeal it on day one would have carried the day. Honest and educated people understood that Obamacare is not socialized medicine, that reform to our system of health care was necessary and voted to continue it (Obamacare).

If in 2016 Obamacare is a failure, the R's will carry the day and try to repeal it. If the Senate rules continue unabated, however, now that the Supreme Court has rule upon it, Obamacare will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If it carries out its promises, even those opposed may learn to love it. However, those who feel their Golden Goose has been murdered will continue to work their ways with the Members of Congress they own.

Paying for it is the concern. It is up to Congress and the President to come to agreement on taxes, spending and priorities. But, that requires compromise and it appears that the most radical Republicans consider compromised to be the works of a RINO.

I don't remember Reid whinging about gridlock in 2004, why does he have a problem now?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The idea behind requiring a 66 vote majority was to preclude a majority party from trampling all over the minority. When the democrats lowered it to 60 they intended to allow themselves to do exactly that. By doing so they increased their chances to ignore the repubs, as they did with the ACA.

I get that; that said our government is gridlocked by ideology. The American voter, generally, won't abide by extreme changes and sets a course correction, seemingly every year.

[I don't know that the R's were ignored; clearly they were opposed to the idea of health care reform ideologically. The harsh rhetoric (Communism! Socialism!) from the right and even elected officials pretty much effected the R's ability to provide mature and responsible input into the need for health care reform in our nation.]

If the majority of the American voters were displeased by Obamacare, Romney's promise to repeal it on day one would have carried the day. Honest and educated people understood that Obamacare is not socialized medicine, that reform to our system of health care was necessary and voted to continue it (Obamacare).

If in 2016 Obamacare is a failure, the R's will carry the day and try to repeal it. If the Senate rules continue unabated, however, now that the Supreme Court has rule upon it, Obamacare will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If it carries out its promises, even those opposed may learn to love it. However, those who feel their Golden Goose has been murdered will continue to work their ways with the Members of Congress they own.

Paying for it is the concern. It is up to Congress and the President to come to agreement on taxes, spending and priorities. But, that requires compromise and it appears that the most radical Republicans consider compromised to be the works of a RINO.

I don't remember Reid whinging about gridlock in 2004, why does he have a problem now?

Ask Reid. While you're at it ask McConnell why he choose to Nullify the election of President Obama and make his number priority to ensure President Obama was a one term President. Abject failure on his part, even partisan hacks must agree. Huh windbag?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I get that; that said our government is gridlocked by ideology. The American voter, generally, won't abide by extreme changes and sets a course correction, seemingly every year.

[I don't know that the R's were ignored; clearly they were opposed to the idea of health care reform ideologically. The harsh rhetoric (Communism! Socialism!) from the right and even elected officials pretty much effected the R's ability to provide mature and responsible input into the need for health care reform in our nation.]

If the majority of the American voters were displeased by Obamacare, Romney's promise to repeal it on day one would have carried the day. Honest and educated people understood that Obamacare is not socialized medicine, that reform to our system of health care was necessary and voted to continue it (Obamacare).

If in 2016 Obamacare is a failure, the R's will carry the day and try to repeal it. If the Senate rules continue unabated, however, now that the Supreme Court has rule upon it, Obamacare will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If it carries out its promises, even those opposed may learn to love it. However, those who feel their Golden Goose has been murdered will continue to work their ways with the Members of Congress they own.

Paying for it is the concern. It is up to Congress and the President to come to agreement on taxes, spending and priorities. But, that requires compromise and it appears that the most radical Republicans consider compromised to be the works of a RINO.

I don't remember Reid whinging about gridlock in 2004, why does he have a problem now?

Ask Reid. While you're at it ask McConnell why he choose to Nullify the election of President Obama and make his number priority to ensure President Obama was a one term President. Abject failure on his part, even partisan hacks must agree. Huh windbag?

Strange how the only person on the planet that remembers that meeting is named Newt, yet you keep repeating it like it is fact. Tell me something, if that meeting actually happened, why would they have invited Newt?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't remember Reid whinging about gridlock in 2004, why does he have a problem now?

Ask Reid. While you're at it ask McConnell why he choose to Nullify the election of President Obama and make his number 1 priority was to ensure President Obama was a one term President. Abject failure on his part, even partisan hacks must agree. Huh windbag?

Strange how the only person on the planet that remembers that meeting is named Newt, yet you keep repeating it like it is fact. Tell me something, if that meeting actually happened, why would they have invited Newt?

What meeting do you reference? BTW, Solyndra was a $500,000 "bondoggle"; Iraq cost us $10 Billion per month and the lives of too many Americans for years. Both were funding by votes in the Senate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ask Reid. While you're at it ask McConnell why he choose to Nullify the election of President Obama and make his number 1 priority was to ensure President Obama was a one term President. Abject failure on his part, even partisan hacks must agree. Huh windbag?

Strange how the only person on the planet that remembers that meeting is named Newt, yet you keep repeating it like it is fact. Tell me something, if that meeting actually happened, why would they have invited Newt?

What meeting do you reference? BTW, Solyndra was a $500,000 "bondoggle"; Iraq cost us $10 Billion per month and the lives of too many Americans for years. Both were funding by votes in the Senate.

Solyndra, by itself, cost that much, how much does corporate welfare cost?

By the way, the Senate did not vote on the Solyndra loan, stop lying.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Apologize if this has alredy been posted but I'm getting here late and wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

I wouldn't mind the current filibuster rules EXCEPT - I think the senator should actually have to stand up there and keep talking. Having an aide phone another aide with an "intent to filibuster" is just way too easy. It's an extreme measure and should require an extreme effort.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Strange how the only person on the planet that remembers that meeting is named Newt, yet you keep repeating it like it is fact. Tell me something, if that meeting actually happened, why would they have invited Newt?

What meeting do you reference? BTW, Solyndra was a $500,000 "bondoggle"; Iraq cost us $10 Billion per month and the lives of too many Americans for years. Both were funding by votes in the Senate.

Solyndra, by itself, cost that much, how much does corporate welfare cost?

By the way, the Senate did not vote on the Solyndra loan, stop lying.

I'm not lying; I might be wrong. I believed and still do that Solyndra was funded under the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. It may have been funded by the Energy Act, but until you provide evidence I'm lying I stand by my comment that Solyndra was part of an act of Congress, one voted upon in the Senate.

Now, you are free to cut and run which is one of your notable characteristics (or continue to argue illogically by attacking me and not my argument, one more character trait for which you are well known).

By the way, define "corporate welfare" vis a vis the Federal Grants Programs. You stil haven't answered what meeting you referenced.

 

[Charles_Main]

Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?

Background:

Debate, Filibusters, and Cloture


The presiding officer of the Senate may not use the power to recognize senators to control the flow of business. If no senator holds the floor, any senator seeking recognition has a right to be recognized, and then, usually, to speak for as long as he or she wishes (but only twice a day on the same question). Once recognized, a senator can move to call up any measure or offer any amendment or motion that is in order. Senate rules do not permit a majority to end debate and vote on a pending question.


Generally, no debatable question can come to a vote if senators still wish to speak. Senators who oppose a pending bill or other matter may speak against it at indefinite length, or delay action by offering numerous amendments and motions. A filibuster involves using such tactics in the hope of convincing the Senate to alter a measure or withdraw it from consideration. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.


The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.

Link: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Senate Legislative Process

Ask yourself why the Dems had near Super Majorities in Both Houses and didn't revise the rules on Filibuster then?

Because they know someday they will be in the Minority again.

It always seems to be the Party in Power who starts talking about ending Filibusters, but they never do, Because they want the power when they are not in the Majority. Period.

If Dems were to change the rules now, I would be willing to bet they would change them back again before leaving office if they were to lose a Majority in another Election.