Dumb question (0.00 / 0)

  Since the Democrats technically have the majority in the Senate, why don't they just block the Warner crap bill from coming to the floor at all? Or am I missing something?

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 21:43:27 PM UTC

Cliff Notes... (0.00 / 0)

The maj leader has control over what bills come to the floor.

But, once a bill is on the floor, it's open to amendment by any senator, and, in most cases those amendments may be nongermane.

Any amendment which cannot muster a simple majority on a motion to table is dead meat.

If an unfriendly amendment beats out the MTT, the maj leader has the choice of pulling the bill and starting again, or taking the amendment out in conference - assuming that he can fix the conference! 

Conference reports can be filibustered, but can't be amended.

The modern way is to short-circuit the cloture process on amendments, and agree a unanimous consent agreement for a 60 vote shootout - as happened on Webb and McCain today.

The amendments covered by such an agreement go straight to a vote, but the required majority is 3/5 of total members, like cloture.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 22:30:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cloture failed 56-44. (4.00 / 1)

  And, naturally, it was withdrawn.

  Why are the Dems so congenitally terrified of forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster something?

  "Moderate" Republican Arlen Specter voted against it. I hope this disabuses anybody of the belief that this guy is anything but a warthog.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 22:01:42 PM UTC

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGHGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!! (4.00 / 2)

It did NOT need 60 votes to "pass."  It needed 60 votes to end debate and THEN vote whether or not to pass the amendment.  Another way to put this - and it's just me, but I think this would be preferable language - is that it required 60 votes to end the Republican filibuster.

---

by: corndog @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 02:01:45 AM UTC

cloture (0.00 / 0)

Don't you wish we had let Bill Frist abolish the filibuster when he gave us the chance?  The very existence of the Senate is undemocratic.  It gives the elector of a Senator in Wyoming more than fifty times the senatorial power of a voter in California. 

If this weren't bad enough to make the US one of the least democratic of democratic nations (along with the lack of ministerial and party responsibility) tiny minorities can block the democratic action of our government. 

---

by: TomSkidmore @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 02:22:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The filibuster itself isn't the problem (0.00 / 0)

I, for one, would have LOVED to have seen a series of headlines over the next few days reading, "GOP filibuster of troop-readiness bill extends into XXth day".

  If the Democrats were any good at politics, that's exactly what they would have forced.

  Think of the myths that would have destroyed: (a) the idea that the Republicans "support the troops", and (b) the idea that the Republicans are these wonderful, reasonable bipartisan guys trying to deal with these awful hyperpartisan Democrats.

  The Democrats couldn't pick low-hanging fruit if it were served to them on a silver platter.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 02:28:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sigh... (4.00 / 1)

One year ago, the Democrats didn't DARE filibuster, because to do so would have gravely endangered the 2006 elections.

  Today, the Democrats don't DARE force the Republicans to filibuster, because to do so would gravely endanger the 2008 elections.

  When Democrats filibuster, it's a fatal mistake guaranteed to turn off voters. But the Democrats are the generous, compassionate party, and as such are extremely accommodating in preventing the Republicans from also blundering into that fatal mistake guaranteed to turn off voters. It's so nice of the Dems to look out for their colleagues across the aisle!

  I have an idea. Let's relocate all Democratic beltway consultants to the South Sandwich Islands for the next fourteen months, with no phone or internet access. We'll send a trawler a few times a month with food supplies.

  Then our party can start growing its brain back. Not to mention its spine.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 02:19:03 AM UTC

No So Stoller. (0.00 / 0)

Wrong :

"It needed 60 to pass."

It needed 60 to not be *potentially*  fillibustered, which the Dems didn't bother with letting the R's try to pull off.

---

by: Wilberforce @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:00:19 AM UTC

check it (0.00 / 0)

great article by kagro x on kos about this.

---

by: user @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 15:03:33 PM UTC