USA's biggest secret- Dems were filibuster proof for only FIVE months

Wrong AGAIN. Arlen gave them 59 votes. From Huffpo report 4/28/09:

The move will give Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate, presuming Minnesota's Al Franken is eventually seated. However, in his statement Specter said his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act -- widely seen as a defense against a Republican primary challenge -- will not change.

Arlen Specter Switching Parties From Republican To Democrat
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) is becoming a Democrat. "I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/arlen-specter...

Franken FINALLY seated 7/7/09....

you need to read my post not what you want to read as here;


read up on senatorial rules and VOTING calculus
the senate rules for cloture call for "duly chosen and sworn". they had 3/5ths with 98 members and 59 votes.
I have a question for the Senate rules expert. Does a senator have to be present in the chamber to vote, or could Kennedy vote from his sick bed? If he had to be present and since Kennedy was mostly too sick to be present, then the Dems only had enough votes "present" to end cloture when Kirk was sworn in on Sept 25, 2009. So that would be as a practical matter only about 4 months of a filibuster proof senate.

The rules don't say 60, thats just a number based on a full chamber, it reads; 3/5ths of the duly chosen and sworn. I am far from an expert but I can read.*shrugs* google is your friend.
 
you need to read my post not what you want to read as here;



the senate rules for cloture call for "duly chosen and sworn". they had 3/5ths with 98 members and 59 votes.
I have a question for the Senate rules expert. Does a senator have to be present in the chamber to vote, or could Kennedy vote from his sick bed? If he had to be present and since Kennedy was mostly too sick to be present, then the Dems only had enough votes "present" to end cloture when Kirk was sworn in on Sept 25, 2009. So that would be as a practical matter only about 4 months of a filibuster proof senate.

The rules don't say 60, thats just a number based on a full chamber, it reads; 3/5ths of the duly chosen and sworn. I am far from an expert but I can read.*shrugs* google is your friend.
Well, since you avoided answering the question and stooped to CON$ervative arrogant condescension, that means Kennedy would have to be present to vote, and you as a CON$ervative are too dishonest to admit that as a know-it-all you are wrong.

So without Frankin and without Kennedy the Dems have only 58 votes PRESENT, 56 Dems and 2 Inds, leaving them short of the number they need to break the GOP filibuster. And, of course, Kennedy being "duly chosen and sworn," makes 99 members requiring 60 votes, not 98 members and 59 votes as you claimed earlier. Arithmetic is your friend.

Or to put it in your own condescending style, you might be able to read, but you can't comprehend the simple arithmetic the words require.
 
Last edited:
Sniff, sniff, whine whine...democrats held a majority in both houses of congress for four years and with a radical left wing president for two but sob, sob they were filibuster proof for only five months.
 

Forum List

Back
Top