The 60 Vote Lie

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15110/the-60-vote-lie

The 60 Vote Lie
by: Chris Bowers
Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 16:45


One of the most pernicious lies in our political process has nothing to do with birth certificates or Glenn Beck. Instead, it is the repeated and blatantly false claim that 60 votes are required to pass most legislation in the Senate.

With the exception of treaties, impeachment convictions, and amendments to the Constitution, anything--not just budgetary reconciliation bills--can pass the Senate with only 51 votes. Everyone knows this, as we went through a fight over it just four years ago:

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

Any filibuster can be ended with only 51 votes. There was a huge political fight over this only four years ago, and yet we still all pretend that 60 votes are required to pass anything through the Senate.

snip//

We don't need 60 votes to pass a public option tied to Medicare, or cap and trade, or card check, or cramdown, or virtually anything at all. All we need are 51 Democratic Senators who are both in favor of those policies and who are willing to use the nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate. We could have passed all of those policies this year, but instead our Senate majority decided to value Senate process and a bipartisan image more than they value those policies. As such, the very least that we can do is start calling them on their lies about the need for 60 votes, and point out that if it was willing to do so, almost anything can pass through the Senate with only 51 votes.

When this health care fight is over, I am considering starting a campaign to call out any Senator who lies about the need for 60 votes.

[babylonsister]

1. Apparently tweety doesn't know about this either; just said 60 votes

were necessary. :eyes:

[happyslug]

2. True, but are the Democrats willing to give up the Filibuster?

The Filibuster has been part of the Senate since the first Senate in 1789. In the early 1970s the Senate changed it rules from 2/3 majority (67 votes) to end debate (Which is want the Filibuster is) to the present 60 votes (and changed the rule so that the filibustering side no longer had to keep on talking, one of the requirements of the old Filibuster rule).

The Filibuster exists to protect the rights of the Minority party, it means a mere majority can NOT pass a bill in the Senate IF more then 40 Senators oppose the passing of that bill. Originally the Filibuster was justified on the grounds that the Senate is an undemocratic structure, it's membership does NOT reflect the population of each state. Lower population states have the same number of Senate as Californian and New York, the two states with the highest population.

The issue is NOT whether the Filibuster CAN be dismissed but whether is should be. Do we want a Senate controlled by the GOP to pass bills with a simple majority? Right now most Democrats support ending Filibuster, but if the Democrats even become the Minority party (and it will be sooner or later) will it not want the ability to filibuster? Do NOT look at the Filibuster as a weapon the GOP hurls at the Democrats, but as a weapon to protect the rights of the Minority party. Do we wish to give that power up for the temporary ability to pass National Health Coverage? Especially one WITHOUT a Government option let alone single payer? The Majority does not like to think of the days it will be in the Minority but it will come and those minority rights so abused by the GOP today, can be used to save the country whenever the Democrats are in the Minority.

[robinlynne]

3. let them filibuster, then vote! what is the problem with that?

[babylonsister]

5. Even Harry Reid is talking reconciliation, thinks they may

have no choice... :shrug: But that's today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6556607&mesg_id=6556607

[NightWatcher]

4. "60" was a copout. The Dems quoted that number, never thinking they'd have it

and they still dont have it, but it acts as a means to deflect criticism on why they dont accomplish what we want them to do. In lieu of working hard and pissing off their corporate masters, they lie to us and say that it's too hard without the 60.

[bvar22]

6. No more excuses.

For many of our professional politicians, getting 60 votes in the Senate was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
No more excuses for the Status Quo.

What The Democrats really need is 70 seats in The Senate.
THEN we would see some action!
Send in your donation TODAY!

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. K & R