Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate rules reform and the "constitutional option" (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Name one time they've actually filibustered (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim P, twigg, DaveVentura

    I'll give you a cookie if you can come up with one. They have threatened filibuster, by preventing 60 votes for cloture on legislation. AT THAT POINT SENATE LEADERSHIP HAS PULLED THE LEGISLATION, EACH AND EVERY TIME, SAYING THAT THE LEGISLATION FAILED. Here's the deal. You hold a vote for cloture. It gets just shy of 60 votes. Now someone has to be threatening to stage a filibuster for the bill to be pulled, otherwise the vote for cloture would be passed. But rather than keeping the debate ongoing, the Dem leadership ends debate by pulling the bill. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Never once have they tested the political resolve of their opponents, based on a conviction that the majority was in the right. Please stop protecting Harry Reid from criticism. His term as majority leader has been an unmitigated disaster for progressivism.

    •  So, in effect there's a counter-filibuster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      always available. Repubs claim they are going to fight this forever, we actually fight it forever and see if they don't back down, or votes leave the room eventually.

      Practically, Dems'd take a vote, lose, and then put the vote forward again. Repeat till victory.

      Do I have this right?

      Perhaps Harry thinks, 'Heck, they're sure to be stronger than me, so why waste everyone's time?"

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:08:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is what a filibuster IS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jim P

        It doesn't take 60 votes to end debate (cloture) it takes 60 votes to END A FILIBUSTER. Yes, you end debate (with 51 or more votes), and proceed to vote on the bill under debate and AT THAT POINT the filibuster must be invoked, and you LET THE OTHER PARTY GO TO TOWN.

        I don't see why even brilliant people like Rachel Maddow are willing to entertain this filibuster "reform" twaddle. It's enabling, that's all it is.

        •  So Dems have chosen to read the (0+ / 0-)

          failure to get a 2/3rds cloture vote as if it were a sign, or a proof, that they will be filibustered on the actual bill, yes?

          Geez, if I have what you're saying right, that would mean these people have really been pulling our chain all along. It's completely cynical.

          They've simply not been willing to test whether this is a sign or proof of a filibuster on the bill.

          So, just to be clear: you're saying that there's nothing preventing any bill from being presented, as long as the cloture vote gets a majority vote?

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:36:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site