WTF?!? They didn't have the 60 votes to stop a filibuster!

[CornField]

Son of a bitch.

[pocket]

1. so our so-called representatives caved for no fucking reason!

.

[blm]

2. News media kept saying they did.... harped on it for a week nonstop.

Too bad so many Dem lawmakers BELIEVE The media and don't see that it catapults the propaganda for BushInc.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. You're right. The media controlled this vote before it even began.

I called CNN to give them a piece of my mind about it too. Fuckers.

[WilliamPitt]

They would have found them if the cloture vote had failed

They didn't have the 60 because they didn't need them.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. Will, can you PLEASE help...

some of the people here that do NOT understand the terms FILIBUSTER and CLOTURE? Maybe you can get a thread tacked to the top explaining the process as SOOOO many people here just don't get it.

60+ votes on CLOTURE means NO FILIBUSTER....arrrrgggggggghhhhhhh :mad:

subjectProdigal

[WilliamPitt]

6. The people who don't understand

don't want to. Anger feels good.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. I can attest to that...

anger...good understanding...toomuchwork...

sP

[Midlodemocrat]

16. So much for staying out of GD: Alito

:bounce:

[CornField]

8. I do understand the time for filibuster was done and gone

I do not understand why, if there were only 58 final votes aye, the democrats didn't hold together and go for filibuster at cloture.

Please do not assume that others are ignorant -- frustrated perhaps, but not ignorant.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. many here just don't get it...

they think that you have to vote ON a filibuster (or something like that). The cloture vote WAS a vote on the filibuster...and there weren't the votes to support it...by a longshot. I know a LOT of people here do get it...but some just don't and won't listen...

sP

[Demit]

13. TOTAL 72 Yes 25 No --that was the final vote on cloture.

We would have needed 41 votes to keep debate going (filibuster).

[CornField]

17. Nevermind... you don't understand the point I'm making

And that's fine because, in the great scheme of things, it doesn't really matter.

[Demit]

19. Yes, I finally found out the context later. Not that you were very clear

in your stream-of-consciousness original post. Might be helpful to provide context next time so people don't have to figure out for themselves what the hell you might be talking about.

[Brotherjohn]

18. They were, as usual, gutless. The ones that were anti-Alito, pro-cloture..

... anyway.

I realize being against Alito doesn't necessarily mean you're against him to the point of a filibuster. But you'd think if 42 people (I'm assuming all Dems) were against the man being appointed, AND there was a significant Dem movement for a filibuster, that they'd have gotten on board.

They're afraid for their political skins, which is abhorrent. But even if they are, don't they read the damned polls!!

I firmly believe that if the Democratic Party, en masse, would show some spine, people would come aboard in droves.

[babylonsister]

11. From Will on Saturday; good article, lots of info:

If you have any friends/family who need the filibuster issue clarified...


in terms of the actual mechanics of what is going on, this article is an excellent resource:

===

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0128-21.htm

Mr. Smith Comes to Washington
by Paul Savoy

How many senators does is take to launch a filibuster? If you said 41, you’d be wrong. It takes only one.

The term, filibuster, from a Dutch word meaning "pirate," describes a hallowed tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate based on the principle that any senator has the right to talk his head off for as long as he wants on any issue. That is, until at least 60 senators vote to shut him up.

In the classic Frank Capra film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Jimmy Stewart, playing freshman Senator Jefferson Smith, carries on a one-man filibuster for more than 23 hours until he passes out from exhaustion. Smith, an idealistic senator from an unnamed state, reads from the Declaration of Independence, and summons his colleagues to get up there with that Lady of Liberty on top of the Capitol Dome and take a stand against "compromise with human liberties."

Senator John Kerry, in announcing that he and Senator Edward Kennedy would participate in a filibuster against the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, said, "It’s not ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’ . . . It takes more than two or three people to filibuster successfully."

At least five other Democrats have announced their support for the filibuster: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. But, in trying to block the confirmation, each of these senators may have to be a "Senator Smith" to succeed in demonstrating the danger a Justice Alito would pose to civil rights and civil liberties.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has defended Judge Alito’s refusal to answer specific questions from Democratic senators aimed at showing the American people just how frightening a Justice Alito would be. The distinguished senator from Pennsylvania has declared that the nominee "has answered questions as far he could go." Judge Alito said it would not be "appropriate" for a judicial nominee to express his views on issues that might come before him if he were appointed to the Court. Well, it turns out that Judge Alito and Senator Specter are wrong. Who says? The Supreme Court. That’s who says.

In 2002, the Supreme Court, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, declared that it is not only proper for a judicial candidate to express his views on disputed legal issues -- the First Amendment guarantees him the right to do so. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, the Court concluded that a Minnesota canon of judicial conduct which prohibited a candidate for judicial office from announcing his position on abortion rights and other controversial issues violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

...much more, read it...

[Bumblebee]

15. It hurts but you are right, of course -- they would have found

at least 5 more crossovers if they needed them.

[frylock]

3. who cares..

the powder is dry, and that is what's important.

[kurth]

4. Well the powder was kept dry, even tho it's well past expiration date

Some Democrats will INSIST on keeping the powder dry until we have "extreme circumstances" - like the Second Coming.

[onenote]

7. apparently they did, since they did.

The repubs never had enough votes to stop a filibuster by themselves: there aren't 60 repubs. And it always was clear that some Democrats who were going to vote against Alito were not going to support a filibuster. Sort of silly to say they didn't have 60 votes to stop a filibuster when, in fact, they stopped a filibuster with well more than 60 votes. I'm not sure what the surprise is: did anyone ever think Alito was going to get 60 votes for confirmation?

onenote

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. They didn't need 60 to stop the filibuster

The filibuster would have been overcome by the 'nuclear option.' That only needed 1/2 of the Senators' support.

[seabeyond]

14. there is a difference between voting for a filibuster and voting

against alito. they may not believe in filibustering a supreme court nominee. and they may dispise alito

they did have enough votes to stop a filibuster..... yesterday, when it was the vote.