Skip to main content

View Diary: Apologies to DailyKos and to Senator Reid (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, I need further clarification. (4+ / 0-)

    I more or less understood the cloture/filibuster situation as TISP explains it in this diary.


    I also thought that once a cloture vote fails, there's nothing keeping the bill from being brought to a cloture vote for a second or third (etc etc) time.  In other words, I didn't understand a failed cloture vote to actually literally kill a bill -- I was operating under the assumption that something else had to happen for a bill to be killed.  And because that's how I understood the process, what I pictured happening was that the Dems would keep bringing the same minimum wage bill to the floor and would keep forcing the Repugs to vote against cloture, hence making them look bad, rather than just saying, "Oh, okay" and putting it away or tacking on a tax cut or whatever.

    So, I guess the question is, what has to happen for the minimum wage bill to be re-introduced?  Does it have to be amended or rewritten, or can it be re-introduced as originally written?  

    Some additional explanation would be most helpful to me.

    Impeach the Cheerleader, save the world -- h/t deepfish

    by Mehitabel9 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:04:30 PM PST

    •  And can we pull a George Allen (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Webster, Floja Roja, Mehitabel9

      like he did to Dick Durbin, and change "will" to "shall?"

      Of course, linquistically, "will" is a promise to fulfill, whereas "shall" is a promise to just try.

      But in any case...

    •  I don't know about Senate rules (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They are complex, and I have a short attention span. But I think that if the bill keeps getting delayed for months and months, eventually the senators just throw up their hands and say, "Fine, this is going nowhere, we have other things that we could be doing. So let's just shelve this bill awhile and get something productive done."

      In regards to rules about changing a bill, I think you can keep re-introducing the exact same bill, kind of like in a Presidential veto. The President can suggest changes to the bill, but that doesn't mean that Congress has to add them. But, I have no idea if that's true.

    •  Yes it can be brought up again (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catfood, Mehitabel9

      and they are still debating and voting on amendments to the bill in the Senate today.

      There is a rule about bringing it up for cloture again, I believe if you voted for cloture you can't bring it up for 72 hours.  If you voted against cloture you can bring up a cloture vote at any time.

      Thus you usually see the Majority leader change his vote to No just before voting closes, but Reid did not do that yesterday, probably because he's planning on waiting until next week to bring it up again.  Frist did that all the time.

      Note: These are my recollections on the Senate rules, but I am by no means an expert and did no research, so  take them with the appropriate amount of salt.

      "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

      by bawbie on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:36:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's correct (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      it can come up every 72 hours.

      but I see no reason why the GOP wouldn't just reject it again and again.

      Republicans: By their rotted fruit you shall know them.

      by thereisnospoon on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:46:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They might; they might not. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The thing is, that 72-hour waiting period gives voters a chance to contact their Senators (such as, oh, say, Dole, Smith, Alexander... and others whose seats are opening up in 2008) and pressure them to vote for cloture next time.

        And if they keep voting against cloture on the minimum wage bill, arguably they are just going to keep looking worse and worse every time they do.

        What to Reid and the Dems have to lose by bringing it back to the floor every 72 hours?  (That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know what the downside would be.)

        Impeach the Cheerleader, save the world -- h/t deepfish

        by Mehitabel9 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:53:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's why I say (0+ / 0-)

        put all the 100 Hours bills in the Senate into this hopper to be put on infinite regress.  That way, we do a cloture vote every 10-20 hours or so.  Really speed up the hammering and take the whole thing down at once.

        Now, this is a really big game of chicken, but the whole point of 100 hours is that every issue is so popular and non-controversial that Pubs will look horrible in opposing.

        Force them to finally say "We hate America" on every cable channel except Fox News - and maybe even that one.

      •  um (0+ / 0-)

        three days of punishment in the press?!?!

        btw, often someone that wants cloture votes against if it's going to lose when called so they can call for it more quickly than 72 hours.

        that is a standard tactic and the 72 hours is thus part of BULLSHIT on this topic.

        strong infrastructure, fair play and sober leadership

        by pyrrho on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 07:47:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (174)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (34)
  • Elections (26)
  • Law (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site