I've been repeatedly asking this question on the need for 60 votes . . .

[defendandprotect]

Just watching C-span from earlier today -- a press conference with Reid and Levin, Schumer, Durbin . . . a bunch of them ... didn't see it all.

But I believe I heard Reid say that last year they simply had up or down votes on Iraq --
but now the Republicans have decided it's a "controversial" issue and now we need 60 votes.
Reid said . . . this is their new way of protecting the president.

OK -- so who is setting the guidelines for votes ???
The majority -- or the minority????

If a simple majority on Iraq was good enough 7 months ago . . .
then it should be up to REID to say how many votes are needed this time around.

How could the Republicans be setting the vote guidelines -- ????

Am I misunderstanding all of this?

[Kool Kitty]

1. I don't understand this either.

How did this rule change?

[mmonk]

2. I think they are even starting to confuse themselves.

They all need to be sent back to the factory.

[eggman67]

3. No rules changed

It's like this:

It takes 60 vote to end debate.

51 to pass the bill.

Essentially it takes two votes, first they have to vote to decide to vote (cloture), then they vote on the bill itself.

Basically Reid is saying that previously there was no problem ending debate and proceeding to the actual vote on the bill. Now, since the Republicans are not getting their way, they suddenly won't vote to end debate and allow the actual vote to proceed. It's a tactic the Dems could have used when they were in the minority but chose not to. Why? I don't know. Maybe they didn't have 41 votes.

[Bonobo]

14. Isn't that "convention" of 2 votes really a circumvention of the law of the land?

Which states that 51 is needed to pass a bill.

In school, we all learned that it was a majority needed. Remember Schoolhouse Rock?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[eggman67]

16. Not really

because the first vote is not on the bill itself, it's a procedural vote to stop debating a given topic. It's been in the Senate rules a long time, and the Senate is constituionally responsible for making their own rules.

[jody]

17. But the Senate is not democratic. WY with 500K people has the same vote as CA with 36+ million. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Your answer can be found in the Constitution:

Article I

Section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[bryant69]

19. They did use it a few times; on judicial nominees for example.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[eggman67]

21. Oh, on that yes

I was referring to Iraq bills as mentioned by Reid.

[whistle]

4. How does that work exactly, rules changes again, the democrats

...do not seem to have the spine whether they are a minority or a majority to stand up against the bully republicans. Spine....spine....spine...like invertibates... NO SPINE!

No take a criminal cretin like Tom Delay who should be languishing in jail, locked away for a really long time, doing hard labor for the shit he pulled. Instead, that prick is out making the take show circuit bad mouthing democrats and spreading total misinformation and pretending he is still the House whip. I refuse to listen to anything that snot says for more than 10 seconds, but like a bad penny he just keeps popping up and getting air time. Newt Gingrich same thing.

Someone in the democratic congress of either chamber, please stand up and lead the charge against these reTHUGs before they eat the constitution like roach-bait.

[karlrschneider]

5. The irony is that if something isn't 'controversial' there wouldn't be a need for votes anyway.

It's just fucked up. FUBAR even.

[CK_John]

6. Also the Senate needs 67 votes to convict in an impeachment process. n/t

[IChing]

7. Cut the purse

that is it, you don't need 60 votes.

[Dagaz]

9. we have a winner!

yup! This all nighter was a sham. Just do what was done on the vietnam war....defund. It actually will also take 60 votes to fund!!!!

[Dagaz]

8. It's been 60 votes for years

I think it used to be 67 and got changed to 60. The Senate makes the rules and can change the rules which they did to not require 60 votes on the budget bills. Otherwise it's 60 for cloture. The so called "gang of 14" was to keep the Pubbies from changing the 60 vote rule with respect to judges.

[Sgent]

10. Also

its the 60 vote requirement is NOT in effect for appropriations bills.

[onenote]

11. The bills/amendments that dealt with iraq last year all got 60 votes

To the extent amendments were introduced last year relating to the withdrawal or redeployment of US forces, those bills/amendments all were defeated with the opposition failing to get even 40 votes. Going through the cloture process would've been an empty gesture since cloture obviously would've been invoked by the same 60 or more Senators who voted against the withdrawal/troop drawdown measures. So, its sort of an idle complaint.

[napi21]

12. Here are the Rules of the Senatere: simple/extraordinary votes.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/96-452.pdf


Simple and Extraordinary Majorities
All questions are to be decided on the Senate floor by simple majority vote
unless a constitutional provision or Senate rule or precedent provides otherwise. A
simple majority vote is defined as at least 50% plus one of the Senators voting,
provided that a quorum is present.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to
! expel a Senator,
! override a presidential veto,
! adopt a proposed constitutional amendment,
! convict upon impeachment,
! give the Senate’s advice and consent to ratification of a treaty,
! determine that a president remains disabled, and
! remove political disabilities (now obsolete).
The Senate’s precedents require the support of two-thirds of those voting, a
quorum being present, to suspend the rules or to postpone indefinitely the
consideration of a treaty. To invoke cloture (under Rule XXII), a vote of three-fifths
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn usually is required; however, on a measure
or motion to amend the Senate rules, cloture requires a vote of two-thirds of the
Senators present and voting. Also under cloture, the 30 hours available for postcloture
consideration may be extended by a vote of three-fifths of all Senators duly
chosen and sworn.
Finally, the Senate currently requires a vote of three-fifths of all Senators duly
chosen and sworn to set aside various procedures and prohibitions of the
congressional budget process, either by agreeing to motions waiving them or by
overturning rulings of the Chair on appeal. These budget process requirements are
itemized and discussed in CRS Report 97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional
Budget Process, by James V. Saturno.

[jody]

13. Filibuster

Filibuster

As a form of obstructionism in a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay or completely prevent a vote on its passage. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority group of 60% of senators brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. In the United Kingdom Parliament, a bill defeated by this maneuver is said to have been "talked out".

[sutz12]

15. You have to understand the filibuster...

Essentially that means that once someone gets the floor, they can just keep on talking, not even about the bill under debate if they don't want to. They just keep on talking. In order to stop the jawing, it takes a vote of 60 Senators to take the floor back. That's the cloture vote.

This allows the minority party to stifle bills they don't like if they can keep talking enough, and if the majority party doesn't have enough votes to stop them.

That's what has to be emphasized here. The Republicans stopped this bill by using the filibuster. Having only a very slim minority, and not enough Repubs to get to 60, the Demas were not able to force their will and allow an up or down vote on the amendment they were 'debating.'

Up until now, the Dems have basically folded any time the Repubs even threatened a filibuster. This time, the Dems at least made them stay up all night and actually perform the filibuster. I know it's no much, but it is progress. They didn't just cave to them, they made them go through the motions. They need to do more of this. When the Repubs threaten to filibuster, fine. Drag out the cots, we're in for a long night.

Unfortunately the media will probably spin this as a Dem loss, rather than Republican stonewalling, which is what it really is.

[Kingshakabobo]

20. To add to some of the excellent responses on this thread explaining cloture...

....versus voting on the actual bill.


This process worked better for the repigs when they were in power because they have a more "lock-step" party. Even when we had enough SEATS to maintain a filibuster, we didn't have enough VOTES to maintain a filibuster - thanks to the 'reasonable' among us. See: gang of 5? 7? 11?...I forget the number......the turncoats that set us up with a fascist supreme court for the next 30 years.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. I think what Reid was referring to is that under the GOP majority, there were immediate votes

(up or down) on Iraq-related items. There was no debate allowed. When the Dems wanted to debate it, the GOP just pulled a 60 vote cloture and went on.