General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan the President veto bills? Can the Democratic minority filibuster?
Of course I know that they have the legal authority to do these things. I'm talking about "can" in the sense that I hear it used here. Like to explain why Democrats don't use their power to its full extent. e.g. Democrats can't do such and such because it would make them look something or other. Obama can't do this or that because he would look like an angry black man. and so on.
One of the things that the Democrats "couldn't" do was to end the filibuster. I wonder if ending the filibuster NOW becomes a possibility?
RandiFan1290
(6,221 posts)The American people will NOT stand for obstruction or filibusters!
We must get along if we want to win another election.
It will be funny to hear the words 'mandate' and 'obstruction' finally find their way back.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)instead of "the bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold", we'll hear "the Democrats filibustered the bill"
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)A decision which I thought was a mistake, but I think they did not see the loss coming:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/
Fifty-two Senate Democrats and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. Three Democrats Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan opposed the change.
The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees, who are still subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, or to legislation.
The Dems can still filibuster on legislation.