Without enough Senate Democrats for a majority, republicans control what bills come up for a vote

[bigtree]

That would effectively BLOCK our legislation from coming up for a vote in any disciplined and managable fashion. The only way our bills would get consideration for a vote would be as alternatives to the majority legislation or by a quorum of 60 votes. We've been there and it's basically a wilderness for the minority.

Forget about the filibusters. Consider not having the advantage to be able to head and dominate the committees which actually craft legislation. Consider all of that advantage in the hands of the republicans.

[Richardo]

1. What's the context here? Dems have 57 seats.

:shrug:


...and see this Joe Conason article to 'talk you down' as Rachel says. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=401229&mesg_id=401229

[bigtree]

2. the bottom line is getting enough legislators to caucus with our party

. . . so that we can effectively control the agenda. Without that, we have next to nothing.

*There's a slight chance, with a runoff, a recount and a count in progress, that we could get to 60

[LynneSin]

5. Democrats have 55 seats. Two seats are held by Independants....

one we can trust (Bernie Sanders) and one we cannot (Joe Lieberman)

[Richardo]

6. Good points - I stand corrected

It's still a majority, though. :hi:

[bigtree]

13. the trick seems to be to get them to do that one act at the outset of the Congress

. . . and vote to organize with our party. I don't know if we can take the idiot Lieberman's committee and still get him to organize with our party. That's the rub.

[elocs]

3. Gee, I've, I've never heard of this before. How can such a thing happen?

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[madrchsod]

4. so why did`t the democrats do the same

when the republicans controlled the senate?

[bigtree]

10. republicans have little principle outside of preservation of power

. . . which manifests itself in lockstep votes. They have no available or willing number of moderates to bend to Democratic legislation, but Democrats have several conservative members who've made up the difference for the opposition on important bills, including a few republican 'alternatives' after they refused to defeat republican filibusters with their votes. Disgusting, but the reality.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Are you drunk?

[bigtree]

12. not yet

a little pissed, maybe

[indepat]

8. It's a god-damned shame Dems did not have the guts/spine to use on junior what 'pukes used on WJC an...

will use on BHO at every turn, blocking every piece of legislation that is not well right of center and torpedoing every nomination of anyone not a strict constructionist. :P

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. Excuse me??

The Dem majority means that the Dem Senate Leader sets the Agenda.
Just to mount a fillibuster the repubs have to get all but two of there members to support it. Don't beleive there were many periods in our history when any party had Supermajorities in btoh houses as well as the presidency.

Just how conservative will the Senate be if we have to persuade the 2 most liberal R's to vote with us?

[bigtree]

11. I'm making the argument for a majority OUTSIDE of the filibuster argument

I'm always optimistic on filibusters.

[TayTay]

14. Are you talking about "holds"?

Ah, a "hold" is an advanced notice that someone is going to object to a bill being brought up. The US Senate pretty much runs on Unanimous Consent decrees and this includes motions to bring up legislation. A hold can be overridden by a Motion to Proceed. (Ah, which is itself subject to cloture.)

Ahm, the Dems do have the upper hand in the new Senate, even if they don't get to 60 votes. Harry Reid, as Majority Leader still has the option of setting the legislative agenda and can set what and when certain bills go to the floor for action and votes.

I don't understand the basis for this gloom in the OP.

This is from the http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm">US Senate website:

Scheduling Legislative Business

The Senate accords its majority leader prime responsibility for scheduling. He may carry out this responsibility by moving that the Senate proceed to consider a particular matter. By precedent, he and the minority leader are recognized preferentially, and by custom only he (or his designee) makes motions or requests affecting when the Senate will meet and what it will consider.

For executive business, this motion to proceed may be offered in a nondebatable form, but for legislative business it usually is debatable. Whenever possible, therefore, the majority leader instead calls up bills and resolutions by unanimous consent. If Senators object to unanimous consent to take up a measure, they are implicitly threatening to filibuster a motion to consider it. They may do so because they oppose that measure, or in the hope of influencing action on some other matter.

Senators can even place a "hold" on a measure or nomination, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules. "Holds" are requests by Senators to their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any request to consider a matter, at least until they have been consulted. The majority leader will usually not even request consent to consider a measure if there is a hold on it.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Gridlock.

I could understand debate and compromise on a bill.

The republicans want to stop effective government for the next four years.