It's 51 - Not 60

[lame54]

Just sayin'

[boston bean]

1. have the Dems ever uttered the words up or down vote? nt

[Octafish]

33. Has the President asked them to come together and support him?

And by "Them" I mean to include the pukes and independents.

They all came together for Wall Street bailout PDQ, but not for much else.

[Xipe Totec]

2. 50 + VP nt

[rurallib]

8. Biden won't ever have to worry about casting that deciding vote

since everything is super majority.
But these rules will change when the pugs are in charge.

[Recursion]

14. You have to end debate first

That takes 60 votes. That's the Senate rules.

Talk about "backbone" or "fighting" all you want, if there aren't 60 votes to end debate, there's literally nothing Reid can do.

[harun]

76. Reid and the Dem's can change the rules. Which they won't do

because those rules make the Senate more important than it should be. Which is more important to them than Democracy.

[Recursion]

77. I agree with that

If Biden and 50 Democrats agreed (Biden would have to agree even if all Democrats agreed), they could do the nuclear option. And yes, the problems with the Senate rules are pretty much kept there to keep Senators important.

[spanone]

3. has anyone mentioned the words 'obstructionists'? guess it only applies to dems

[Recursion]

18. Obama and Reid come to mind

Both have publicly called the Republicans "obstructionist", repeatedly.

[Deep13]

4. The Constitution requires equal representation of states in the Senate.

The 60 vote thing gives the minority disproportionate representation.

[eallen]

10. "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" (Art. I, Sec 5)

And the Senate rules on rule changing is even more onerous than 60.

:hippie:

[Deep13]

29. Yeah, but those rules presumably can't be unconstitutional.

They can't make a rule, for example, that says any Senator with more than 12 years in the Senate may vote twice on any issue. They can't make a rule saying Senators must be Catholic.

[Recursion]

34. Voting parity is set in the Constitution (I.3), so they can't do that

I.3 says, "and each Senator shall have one Vote."

However, I.5 says "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members", (this has been used to block state term limits laws) so I don't know if there would be a legal remedy if the Senate decided non-Catholics are not qualified (Article VI says "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", but it's not clear that SCOTUS would have authority to enforce that on the Senate itself).

[Toots]

5. Only for gaining Chairmanships, for passing anything it is sixty.

:shrug: Not the way it is supposed to be but when are Republicans known for doing things the way they are supposed to be done?

[MadHound]

6. No it's not.

Tons of legislation has been passed with fifty one, fifty two votes.

What it takes to get such legislation passed is either a civil opposition, not bent on obstructionism, and/or a majority party who are willing to fight, willing to force a real live filibuster and use the bully pulpit for beating the obstructionists about the head and shoulders for the actions they have taken.

[Recursion]

12. There's no such thing as a "real live filibuster"

Why does DU insist on making up Senate rules wholecloth?

Alternately, you could say there is such a thing as a real live filibuster, and it's what the Republicans just did to DADT. We watched it happen. No reading from phonebooks needed.

What do you imagine "fighting" would have done? How would the Democratic leadership have "fought" and got a better outcome?

[MadHound]

19. Lovely, another one who doesn't know their high school Civics.

Here, let's put this in simple terms for you, from Wiki:

"In the United States 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 "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"<25> (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. This means that 41 senators, which could represent as little as 12.3% of the U.S. population, can make a filibuster happen. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from three fifths of Senators would be required to break the filibuster.<25> Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. (Proponents also refer to it as the constitutional option.) In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Senate>

And while the 'Pugs were busy keeping the Senate floor yawning, the Dems could take the opportunity to use the bully pulpit in order to beat the 'Pugs about the head and shoulders for their obstructionism. I suggest you research the filibuster on the '64 Civil Rights Act, and LBJ's use of the bully pulpit. Trust me, do this a couple of times, keep the 'Pugs in the news cycle as obstructionists, and they would be a lot less likely to try a filibuster again.

[Recursion]

20. OK, tell me what Reid should do

How can Reid "force a filibuster"? What does he do?

Are you confusing before a cloture vote with after? (After cloture passes, if someone wants to obstruct they have to take the floor and just talk.)

[MadHound]

21. No, I'm not

He could refuse to withdraw the Defense Funding Bill, this would force a real, live filibuster, and away we go. Got it?

[Recursion]

22. No, it's not on the floor yet

It's not on the floor until cloture.

Reid calls a cloture vote. Remember, he can only call one of these per day. The cloture vote fails. What is his next parliamentary move?

[MadHound]

23. Oh geez,

:banghead:

Are you that dumb, that uneducated, or simply that obtuse?

Please, go educate yourself.

[Recursion]

25. I'm not the one making up parliamentary procedure

I actually know a lot about parliamentary procedure. More, apparently, than a lot of people complaining about Reid.

Tell me: what does Reid do, in your perfect world, after the cloture vote fails? Does he initiate a motion? What motion? What are the rules of order for this motion?

[MadHound]

27. I already answered that question in post 21 above

It's real simple.

[Recursion]

28. There's no motion called "refuse to withdraw"

What motion does he initiate after the cloture vote fails?

Edit:

Here are the motions possible (the Senate is slightly different from Robert's, but you get the idea):

http://www.parlipro.org/precedence.htm

Which motion does he initiate?

Edit again:

He could conceivably also raise a point of order or privilege, too.

[MadHound]

30. He doesn't have to initiate a motion,

He simply refuses to withdraw the motion. If forces a filibuster, geez. Remember, the Dems control the Senate agenda, and which bills are heard, or not heard.

At this point this conversation with you has become useless and frustrating. You are obviously trying to come up with any lame excuse you can for the Dems not putting up a fight. Therefore I'm going to disengage with you, it is simply not productive to continue here with you any further.

Have a nice day, and please, go educate yourself.

[Recursion]

31. Remember, the "motion" here is cloture, not the bill

That's the problem: the bill has not yet been on the floor as a motion.

When the cloture vote fails, debate on the bill has not ended, and the bill is not on the floor.

It's not there for him to refuse to withdraw yet.

If Reid wants, he can stop all other business (though if the floor is not held, he can't keep people from taking the floor; presumably he would give the floor to an ally). But he still can't initiate another cloture motion on that bill until the next day.

What happens the rest of the day? What would force the Republicans to go talk?

[Johonny]

44. you won

In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum

I mean it's in the the guys Wiki page he posted to start this.

[no limit]

50. How do you get quorum?

[Recursion]

53. Have 51 Senators in the chamber

Any Senator can still call a quorum call at any time, though, which requires the President to hold a roll call.

[JackRiddler]

68. Actually, he "won" in the style of a classic filibuster...

repeat ignorant uninformed bullshit obtusely refusing to admit facts or repeated refutation until you're the only one left standing.

[Recursion]

70. OK, you try

What can Reid do to make Republicans stand up and talk?

The cloture vote on the motion to proceed on the Defense Authorization bill just failed.

What do you want Reid to do?

[sinkingfeeling]

46. Wasn't a cloture vote. Was a vote to proceed to debate, not end it.

[Recursion]

48. Thanks; the problem is the same

The bill is still not on the floor. How does Reid "force" Republicans to go talk?

[sinkingfeeling]

60. I think the point is to get the thing to the floor. Reid can put it back on the calendar or try to

work out an UC agreement (which I think he might be trying to do in the background).

[Recursion]

62. I'd bet that he is, too

I'll be the first to agree that the Rules of the Senate are fundamentally broken. But they are what they are.

[Recursion]

71. Correction: it *was* a cloture vote, on the motion to proceed

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

[sinkingfeeling]

43. Here's how the Senate works. What was voted down yesterday was a

'motion to proceed' to debate the defense bill. Cloture is used to end debate and take an up or down vote on a bill.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APL%3B%3E%22P%20%20%0A

[Recursion]

47. It was an MTP? Fine, the question is the same

How can Reid allegedly "force" Republicans to go stand up and talk?

[lame54]

52. when did the cloture vote fail?

[Recursion]

54. I was wrong about the type of motion; it was a Motion to Proceed

Which is similar, but is a step before invoking an end to debate (they're actually filibustering starting debate rather than ending it).

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/moproced.htm

And I think it failed Monday.

[lame54]

55. what was the vote #

[Recursion]

56. 238

senate.gov is calling it a cloture motion, oddly enough.

Oh, God. It's a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. Ugh.

[lame54]

57. why wouldn't the next vote have similar #"s

[Recursion]

59. I'm not sure what you mean NT

[lame54]

67. you implied that it would proceed to another vote

[Recursion]

69. It was a vote on a motion of cloture on a motion to proceed on the Defense bill

Here's what I mean:

There's a defense bill that includes killing DADT, that just got out of committee.

Now it has to come to the floor. To do that takes a Motion to Proceed (yes, they're voting on whether or not to vote on the bill. Don't blame me; I didn't come up with this system.). A Motion to Proceed only requires a majority, just like the bill itself. But a Motion to Proceed is debatable, meaning it requires 60 votes to end debate (yes, that's yet another vote, voting on whether or not to vote on whether or not to vote on the bill).

That vote (the one that requires 60 votes) is a cloture vote. Voting against cloture is what "filibustering" is.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

63. Find his spine?

I know for a fact he was born with one. I've seen the blueprints.

[Recursion]

64. OK, say he's found his spine

Now, the vote on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed on the Defense Authorization bill has just failed.

What does he do that would be "spineful", in your opinion?

[harun]

78. There is no reading from phonebooks or talking needed. Everyone knows

that by now. Except you.

[lame54]

7. Why are they in charge?

[Recursion]

15. They're not "in charge"; they can't bring stuff to the floor

But any block of 41 Senators can also prevent any piece of legislation from coming to the floor.

[lame54]

24. then let's make them...

the repugs are very good at hanging themselves with their own words

let's make them talk this out

[Recursion]

26. You mean the Strom Thurmond or Mr. Smith scene?

Hollywood. Even Strom didn't have to do that; he just did it because it made his supporters happy.

Without 60 votes, debate on a measure can't end, and it cannot come to the floor.

[lame54]

37. oh no - bold letters - i guess i lost this round...

one question though - what did gibbs when he said 60 is the NEW 50

[Recursion]

39. I assume you meant "what did gibbs mean when he said..."

And he meant that we have an unprecedented number of failed cloture votes. In earlier days, the losing side would allow debate to end (or at least enough of them would), and then vote against the bill.

Democrats held 89 successful filibusters between 1991 and 2008 (see http://www.slate.com/id/2244060/ ). Do you recall Democratic Senators reading from the phone book at any point in that time?

[lame54]

58. then why the fuck doesn't Gibbs say that...

over and over and over instead of implying that the rules have actually changed

he just legitimized their obstructionism

of all the problems this administration has - PR is one of the worst

[Recursion]

61. They've hit the Senate GOP pretty hard on this, over and over

I mean, sure, they could do it more, but they've put this out in pretty much every speech.

[lame54]

65. I call b.s. on that

[madrchsod]

9. it`s neo- math...

[Odin2005]

11. The filibuster is an excuse.

[Recursion]

13. What do you mean?

The filibuster is the fact that the Republicans won't vote for cloture. That's what a filibuster is.

[Odin2005]

96. Then why don;t they make the Pukes REALLY fillibuster and recite a phonebook all night?

[dkofos]

16. Don't worry. When the pubes take over next year it will be 51 again.

[Recursion]

17. Why? It wasn't last time they were in charge

The Democrats successfully filibustered several pieces of legislation and nominations.

[no limit]

32. Except for the Iraq war, 2 tax cuts for the rich, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind,

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Bankruptcy Reform
Military Commissions

Or you know, all the stuff that actually matter.

And it is clear from your conversations above you have absolutly no clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to the filibuster. Reid and the democrats have many options that could force a real filibuster.

[Recursion]

35. We didn't have 40 Democrats who voted against cloture for those bills

If we had, those would have been filibustered too.

[no limit]

38. And your point is?

[Recursion]

40. That's why they weren't filibustered: Democratic senators voted to end debate

Or at least enough of them did.

[no limit]

42. Right. The republicans had no problems getting most of their major legislation through

yet the democrats can't get anything done without first watering everything down.

Why? Because the democrats are fucking cowards.

[Recursion]

66. If there was cowardice, it was 2001-2006

When the Democrats did not hold nearly as many filibusters as the Republicans have since. Are you saying they are being cowards now? Why?

[no limit]

73. Yes, they are being cowards. And when they drop the ban on DADT it will be another example why

they could keep the ban in place in the defense bill and force republicans to filibuster that bill. I have a feeling they won't do that.

And I guess that means you agree, the democrats were cowards in 2001-2006?

[Recursion]

75. Republicans *ARE* filibustering the bill

111th Congress, Senate roll call vote 238:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00238

(Reid voted "nay" because that gives him some obscure parliamentary advantage in resubmitting next time.)

That is a filibuster. Right there. That vote. That is what a filibuster is.

[no limit]

81. You didn't answer my question. So you agree they were cowards in 2001-2006?

And like I said, I am aware of the filibuster. I am telling you that if the democrats past record is to teach us anything they will drop the DADT ban from the defense bill.

[Recursion]

83. I dislike the filibuster, so I don't think they were "cowards" for not using it

And, yes, they either have to drop DADT repeal, or convince enough Republicans to vote for cloture with the repeal in. Reid is working on option 2 right now.

[no limit]

84. So not using the filibuster to stop the Iraq war was the right decision?

And I see you seem to be ok with the idea that they remove the DADT ban from the defense bill if option 2 doesn't work?

[Recursion]

86. Oh, Iraq was definitely a filibuster-worthy bill

Too bad we didn't have 40 pro-peace Democrats in the Senate at that point.

[no limit]

87. We don't have 40 pro-peace democrats at this point. And you didn't answer my second question

If the democrats withdraw the DADT repeal from the defense bill to get it passed will you be okay with that? Because as I said, that would make them total cowards.

[Recursion]

88. "OK with it"? No, I'll be pissed as hell

But we do have to get the authorization passed, and we may not have the votes to do it with the DADT repeal.

[no limit]

90. So that would make them cowards, right?

Yes, the bill needs to be passed. But why do the democrats always have to be the ones that give in?

[Recursion]

91. No, it would mean they recognize we have to fund the DoD

And if we can't get that done with the DADT repeal included, then we have to do it without it.

[no limit]

92. So the democats need to be the ones to cave? Why?

[Recursion]

93. Because any block of 41 Senators can block any piece of regular legislation, indefinitely

That's why the Senate is broken.

[no limit]

94. If they don't let the bill through the republicans will eventually have to budge

you are arguing that democrats need to be cowards. This is a game of chicken, a game you are ok with the democrats losing. Republicans did this same thing during the Bush years. They packed things in the defense bill that had nothing to do with defense. The democrats didn't filibuster then and let them through.

Why do you want me to support a party that refuses to fight for anything?

[Recursion]

95. The problem is Democrats are less sociopathic than Republicans

And tend to blink in the chicken game before the trucks slam into each other.

[Recursion]

36. And I'll be happy for an answer from you, too

What specific action could Reid take to force the Republicans to stand up and talk? Don't say "fight", don't talk about "backbone", tell me the specific parliamentary method he could use, in your imagination.

[no limit]

41. From post 19 above that you obviously read but chose to ignore:

"the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. (Proponents also refer to it as the constitutional option.) In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses."

Reid has the option to call a roll call vote to show that there is no quorum.

[Recursion]

45. OK, he could do the nuclear option

He could call Biden in and request a ruling from the chair that the cloture motion passed with 59 (or however many) votes. This would now be the parliamentary precedent and would effectively end the practice of the filibuster. Forever. This is the "nuclear option". I'm not sure Biden would agree to do that, but if he would, this is an option.

Reid has the option to call a roll call vote to show that there is no quorum.

Sure, he can do that. He can call quorum votes as often as he wants, and cloture votes once a day.

So, he calls a lot of votes. Would that make you happier?

[no limit]

49. Why do you keep ignoring the point? If there is no quorum the party that filibusters

would have to hold the floor. So nuclear option is one weapon they have, quorum is the other.

Therefore your suggestion that a real fillibuster is the work of hollywood and that there is nothing Reid can do is dead wrong and you should stop repeating this absolute falsehood.

[Recursion]

51. What? No. Quorum calls are what the filibustering party uses

One Republican sits there and says "Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum" any time a Democrat tries to bring the bill to the floor.

This forces a quorum vote, which derails the attempt to bring the bill before the chamber.

If they try to bring it forward again, the Republican does the same thing. Again.

This is how Dan Packwood got hurt by the Sergeant at Arms, when Byrd sent the SaA to go get him because he was sick of not having a quorum present.

[no limit]

72. Senators can only speak twice on the floor in a legislative day

Here:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

--------------------------------

Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or on the number
of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the
possibility of extended debate by its provision that “no Senator shall speak more than
twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of
the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.” This provision, commonly
called the “two-speech rule,” limits each Senator to making two speeches per day,
however long each speech may be, on each debatable question that the Senate
considers. A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes
ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day.

The “day” during which a Senator can make no more than two speeches on the
same question is not a calendar day, but a legislative day. A legislative day ends only
with an adjournment, so that, whenever the Senate recesses overnight, rather than
adjourning, the same legislative day continues into the next calendar day. A
legislative day may therefore extend over several calendar days. The leadership may
continue to recess the Senate, rather than adjourning, as a means of attempting to
overcome a filibuster by compelling filibustering Senators to exhaust their
opportunities of gaining recognition.

--------------------------------

If Reid did not adjourn the senate republicans would have to constantly talk and they would be limited to making 2 speeches per member. So if Reid wanted to stay in the senate for a week to fight a filibuster he could absolutely do that.

[Recursion]

74. On a single question

They can only talk twice per day on a single debatable question. Big difference.

You're still missing the point.

The cloture vote failed. Debate on the motion to proceed isn't over. Whether the Republicans are up there talking or not, debate isn't over. As long as debate isn't over, you can just have one guy request a quorum call, or submit a vacuous amendment. Over and over again. No speeches. No reading from phone books.

The cloture vote terminates debate, which means the ridiculous stalling tactics like that are not possible. But it takes 60 votes to do that.

[no limit]

79. Yes, and it is up to Reid if they move on to another debatable question

If they don't they will have to sit there and debate. Aka a real filibuster that you said does not exist.

[Recursion]

80. OK, say Reid doesn't move on to another debatable question

He still can't force a Republican to take the floor.

Everybody just sits there. The motion to proceed still can't be voted on, because debate isn't over. Reid can simply shut down all Senate business. But then he's the one filibustering.

[no limit]

82. The link I gave you disagrees with you. Yes, a republican would have to be on the floor

as he or she would have to debate. The only way to debate is on the floor.

[Recursion]

85. That link says nothing of the sort

The link says that they can only speak twice per day on any given debatable question. They don't have to speak at all.

As long as debate is not over, they can request quorum calls or simply submit an amendment changing a comma to a semicolon. Over and over again. As long as they want. They just hand a note to a page, who hands it to the President. That's it. Before cloture is invoked, every one of those has a higher priority than the motion to proceed. Invoking cloture prevents other actions (other than motions to adjourn and points of privilege and order) from taking higher precedence than the main motion.

Debate is not about talking, it's about the rules of precedence for motions when "debate" is technically happening. And "debate" keeps happening until a cloture vote, whether anyone is talking or not.

[no limit]

89. I'm kind of tired of debating this with you. We both agree the nuclear option is a valid option

that the democrats can use. They choose not to use it because they are cowards. And actually it's not that they won't use it, they won't even threaten to use it as the republicans did during the Bush years.

We'll leave it there.