We Only Need 51 Votes in the Senate

[tekisui]

To do away with the filibuster. I think it is time to blow the filibuster out of the water with the nuclear option. No one filibusters anymore, anyway. It is a quaint and obsolete option. If no one is to be forced to actually filibuster, run over the repuke obstructionist with the nuclear option.

It is time.

[onenote]

1. not going to happen

and it shouldn't.

Take a look at some of the bills that Democrats successfully killed because of the cloture rule. Both sides have used it.

[DrDan]

2. and then reinstall it when the repubs are back in power?

I am sure that will fly.

[tekisui]

3. When did the Dems ever use it? They just rolled over when

they were in the minority.

[karynnj]

7. Drilling in ANWR - several times

Two I remember are - in 2001 and 2006. (Stevens even threatened to quit if it didn't pass in 2006 - but he didn't keep his promise.)

It should have worked more often than it did - the gang of 14 never actually sided with the Democrats. If there ever was a clear cut case where they should have it was Alito.

[DrDan]

8. it does not come down to "when" the Dems used it, but the fact that it was there to be used.

[LynneSin]

11. Wow - I'd K&R your reply any time

I swear people are nuts to think this democratic majority is going to last. Trust me, I'll work my ass off to make that happen but politics are like the wind - it'll change direction at any given moment.

[onenote]

15. you must have been out of the country in 2003 and 2004

In 2003 there were 23 cloture votes, and the Democrats succeeded in blocking cloture on 22 occasions. Mostly judges, but some legislation, such as the poorly named "Class Action Fairness Act".

In 2004 there were another 23 cloture votes. The repubs did better, achieving cloture 10 times. Among the bills killed -- the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The Democrats used the soft filibuster/cloture mechanism to hold up nearly a dozen bush appointments, particularly judges. And while the deal cut by the Gang of 14 resulted in a number of the judicial nominations going forward, five judges that Bush nominated never got confirmed due to the Democrats refusal to allow cloture: Pickering, Estrada, Kuhl, Saad and Myers.

[tekisui]

20. I was out of the country in 2004.

:)
I remember the judge battles in 2003. I know it has value. But, it frustrates me how the tradition has become 'scared of filibuster' caving. I would like to see it forced into action. Just whispering filibuster should not be enough. Force their hand.

[GoesTo11]

4. It helps Rs but not Ds

Dems are afraid to use it or even to threaten to use it -- because Repubs threaten the nuclear option. Repubs already only need 50 or 51 votes to pass legislation and 41 votes to block legislation. Dems need 60 votes to pass legislation and 51 votes to block legislation. So in all cases, the existence of the filibuster gives a 9 or 10 seat advantage to the Republicans. The reason isn't just that they've got more spine. They are also the party that doesn't care about its impact on the country and just does things for its own benefit. The Dems could play the same way, and then the senate would be that much less representative. Without the filibuster, putting party over country would be 10 votes more difficult.

[onenote]

16. see post number 15

The Democrats have used it, and to good end.

[KharmaTrain]

5. And They'll Come Up With Another Stunt...

Block nominations and bills from coming out of committee...avoid providing a quorum to shut things down. The fillibuster is a weapon that is best threatened but not used...and one that the Democrats are loathe to eliminate cause they know that one day they may need that weapon as well.

I'm all for the GOOP trying to carry out on their threat. Go for it...shut things down. It worked so well for Gingrich in '95. Keep obstructing and going against the will of the American people and a popular President. You're all but assuring him a second term.

IMHO...all it will take is for the GOOP to have a fillbuster collapse and so goes their party. Remember, this is not a game to win ALL GOOP votes, just pick off a few here and there...and force them to fight among themselves and hold unity. The 60 vote threshold will create more and more stress on their side as the moderates know that sticking with the wingnuts is a quick ticket to unemployment in 2010.

Cheers...

[NancyG]

6. 50. VP Biden breaks the tie. nt

[LynneSin]

9. HELL NO - what are you crazy. That is the STUPIDEST thing we could ever do

Seriously - just take a gun to our foot and shoot it.

I mean were you in a coma the last 8 years - we didn't always have the majority and at one point we were down to 44 senators. You give away the filibuster what is going to happen when the tides of the majority change back (and they always do).

I'm annoyed at this filibustering stuff but I would rather suffer thru it knowing that we have protection. You want to know why the Arctic Refuge was never drilled thank the filibuster. The filibuster kept about a dozen activist judges off of the bench too.

Anyone who thinks this democratic majority is permament clearly hasn't followed politics at all.

[tekisui]

19. I know the majority isn't permenant. However, why are Dems afraid to

threaten the nuclear option? Why is it that the repukes are so much tougher when it comes to throwing their weight around in the Senate? Why can't the Democrats be more effective and bolder when it comes to passing legislation?

[fasttense]

10. Cowardly Democrats need to force the issue and make all these supposed

filibusters actually happen.

It's easy to SAY you are going to filibuster. It's a hell of a lot harder to actually do it in the real world. There are well established rules on how a filibuster must be conducted. Use those rules and force the Republicons to filibuster. Reid needs to make them do what they constantly threaten to do.

[dccrossman]

12. You got it right

Quit this BS with just folding to the threat of a filibuster. Make them sit their asses up all night reading from a phone book, while Dems hit the airwaves asking why we can't just have a vote.

Beyond that, twist some arms! We need a bully on the Dem side that doesn't take the BS and actually tells the Repugs to put up or shut up.

[CanonRay]

13. Been saying this since 2006. Why won't Reid listen?

[onenote]

17. because no one in the senate on either side actually would support it

Even the repubs only pushed the nuclear option with respect to judicial nominees. And the Democrats, who even with the compromise struck by the Gang of 14, successfully prevented five of the 10 filibustered bush appellate court nominees from being confirmed, were right to oppose it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. You need to read the Senate Rules. A 2/3 vote is required to amend those rules:

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php

[tekisui]

21. I stand corrected.

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

In theory they could do it with less than 51, depending on how many are present. If they were all there, it would be 67.

[MiniMe]

18. We will be in the minority again someday. These things go in cycles.

And when we are, we will be glad for it.