Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(165,644 posts)
22. Originally it was for everything (a motion to proceed) - including confirmations (required 2/3rds)
Sun Jan 24, 2021, 08:55 PM
Jan 2021

Then by agreement, the number was dropped to 60 (3/5ths). Then Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option in 2013 to change the filibuster rule to allow confirmations to proceed without needing cloture (3/5ths), but it remained for everything else except Reconciliation and certain legislation that have rules that already define the debate - for example when they did those seditious Electoral College vote "objections" which had rules predetermined that deprecated a need for a cloture vote to initiate the objections debate.

The other way - which actually happens a lot - is to do "unanimous consent" and if no one is there to object, then boom! Something is automatically passed without debate.

The demand is to remove the 3/5ths requirement for everything still requiring it, in order to move a piece of business forward for consideration by a simple majority vote (including if a unanimous consent fails).

(ETA - one way to "weaken" but not kill is to keep cloture for very specific legislation and remove the requirement for other things)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The question is what can they do until a power sharing agreement is agreed to? still_one Jan 2021 #1
What I don't understand is why there needs to be an agreement. LiberalFighter Jan 2021 #3
Hopefully someone can address this and what can or cannot be done with the Senate rules still_one Jan 2021 #5
If they're filibustering the rule change wryter2000 Jan 2021 #7
Are you sure? Rstrstx Jan 2021 #23
Correct wryter2000 Jan 2021 #25
The power sharing agreement has to do with committee assignments euphorb Jan 2021 #8
I promise to hold onto the filibuster Alpeduez21 Jan 2021 #12
The problem is . . . euphorb Jan 2021 #15
Not sure. The Senate sets it's own rules. Perhaps there is something previously written on this Raven123 Jan 2021 #9
Can't for rules....it affects committees...need rules but you can use the reconciliation process. Demsrule86 Jan 2021 #21
Simple, use one vote to change Senate rule so that the Blue_true Jan 2021 #18
it's about fucking time Skittles Jan 2021 #2
Agreed! They can go to hell! lunatica Jan 2021 #4
Interesting wryter2000 Jan 2021 #6
I agree with you. People don't want that nonsense, especially now Raven123 Jan 2021 #10
I can think of two ways to weaken it... thesquanderer Jan 2021 #14
Thanks wryter2000 Jan 2021 #24
I'd like to see a reduction in cloture requirements for each vote on a bill 0rganism Jan 2021 #26
Good. Time's a wastin'. Get rid of the traitors while you're at it, will ya judesedit Jan 2021 #11
Just steam roll them in anyway possible Mabel Jan 2021 #13
Yeah Fuck the Fascist Time WASTERS! Cha Jan 2021 #16
I dont get how this works: Amaryllis Jan 2021 #17
Originally it was for everything (a motion to proceed) - including confirmations (required 2/3rds) BumRushDaShow Jan 2021 #22
"This means being willing to move quickly to what is known as the reconciliation process" BumRushDaShow Jan 2021 #19
I agree. Weaken it each time then finally kill it off. roamer65 Jan 2021 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democrats Signal They Won...»Reply #22