Why is 60 votes "needed", not only to end debate, but to START debate? What has happened?

[Faryn Balyncd]

Perhaps I am missing something, and someone can explain things to me.

I am well aware (and enraged) that we have continued to allow obstructionists to get the benefit of filibuster without paying the political price of actually having to stand up and repeatedly filibuster. And I continue to be an advocate for foecing the obstructionists to actually filibuster, instead of just saying "We don't have the 60 votes" (to force closure of debate) and allowing the obstructionists to win without actually being exposed for what they are.

But I do not remember "needing 60 votes" to START debate. . . . So have I missed something, or is this new?

The RW "news" media is constantly talking today about "60 votes needed to START debate", as if this has always been the case.

So are the Republicans threatening to filibuster, not the bill, but a vote to START debate????

Or, has the Senate adopted rules, or proceedures, that call for a vote to have eventual closure, and require the vote to occur even before debate STARTS?

Or, is is something else?

Am I incorrect to think that something new is going on?

Or has this always been the case for the last few years?

Can someone with knowledge of Senate procedures explain this to me?

Thanks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. This is probably a vote on the terms of the debate

How long and what type or how many amendments will be considered.

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. So is this a NEW levelof obstructionism or just the same old thing? Have the obstreuctionists taken

....their use of the "60 votes" (filibuster treat) to a new level, or not?

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. No, this is how the Senate has operated for many years

[timeforpeace]

12. Worked OK for us when they had the majority.

[Better Believe It]

23. Right! Democrats blocked all of George W. Bush's legislation and court appointments were blocked.

Is was just fantastic!

Talk about re-writing history!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

24. Well

in his defense. The guy you're replying to is kind of a douchy drive by troll.

[lapfog_1]

2. Because any motion can be filibustered.

Including the motion to begin debate.

Another motion (cloture) will come at the end of the debate period, and it will again be filibustered by Rethuglicans.

The actual vote to adopt (actually send to a committee to work out differences between House and Senate versions) only requires a simple majority (50, not 51... if it's 50 to 50, Joe Biden gets to cast a vote).

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. So is it correct that they are, in fact, threatening to filibuster the motion to BEGIN debate, and..

....if that it what they are, in fact, doing today, is this a new tactic, or have they filibustered motions to BEGIN debate in the past?

[AlinPA]

9. Yes.If the filibuster to proceed to debate prevails, the health care bill stops cold in the senate.

I don't recall seeing filibusters to decide to debate a bill, but I suppose I have not been paying attention.

[Better Believe It]

17. And if Democrats refuse to withdraw the motion and force Republicans to actually filibuster?

Oh .... I get it!

The Democrats surrender without forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster on the Senate floor.

[lapfog_1]

18. Until repukes lost the Senate, filibuster wasn't used by either side all that much.

The repukes are filibustering anything and everything now.

They are setting records for the number of filibuster votes that happen.

[Better Believe It]

22. But these aren't really filibusters! The Senate Democrats can force real filibusters.

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses

[lapfog_1]

26. Correct, but they are still called filibusters by everyone.

It's a rule change that allows this (60 vote to pass a procedural motion). The Senate could change the rules back to something else (the so-called nuclear option). However, by agreement, the Senate isn't supposed to do rule changes except at the beginning of the session.

[Better Believe It]

29. The Democrats can end that agreement

"However, by agreement, the Senate isn't supposed to do rule changes except at the beginning of the session."

So what's to stop Democrats from simply changing that "agreement" with the Republicans? Why even agree to that "handcuff the Democrats rule" to begin with?

Who's in running the Senate, the Democrats or Republicans?

[amandabeech]

28. Bring out the cots! Make them speak all night and all day! n/t

[lapfog_1]

16. They aren't voting to start debate (accept the bill for debate)

today. Reid scheduled that for tomorrow. The repukes ARE going to try to filibuster this motion. Apparently, Reid believes that has to vote to override the filibuster tomorrow night.

As for cloture (to end the debate), that is a horse of a different color.

As for passage (if they can get to that vote), I'm pretty sure there are the votes (50) to ensure passage.

There will be another vote after the bill is reconciled (different than passing under reconciliation) with the House bill. Again, simple majorities are needed in both the House and Senate for that to pass.

Then it goes to President Obama.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. Well you see Republicans only need to have 1 vote to block whatever the fuck they want.

Democrats on the other hand apparently need 99 votes. And that doesn't even guarantee anything will pass because they get blocked by their own party.

[phantom power]

5. +1

[anigbrowl]

19. Agreed. Let them filibuster and makes asses of themselves. nt

[AlinPA]

25. Republicans control the senate.

[marlakay]

8. I heard some of them say they will vote to vote if they can

talk about it first!

Is that crazy or what??? They said they wanted to say what they believe in Sat. before the vote to vote.

Its all political posturing. I sometimes wish we could start a new system, ours is so corrupt.

[librechik]

10. over time, the "filibuster" has devolved into a mere ghost of its original use

now they only have to say they're going to block the vote, and the 60 thing automatically applies. Ain't modernday streamlining great? Wish we could streamling the whole archaic Senate...

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Nothing new. 'Motions to proceed' have been a part of the Standing Rules of the

Senate: Rule VIII

2. All motions made during the first two hours of a new legislative day to proceed to the consideration of any matter shall be determined without debate, except motions to proceed to the consideration of any motion, resolution, or proposal to change any of the Standing Rules of the Senate shall be debatable. Motions made after the first two hours of a new legislative day to proceed to the consideration of bills and resolutions are debatable.

[Warpy]

13. Lieberman happened

He'll stick it to the Democrats even when it violates long held principles because the Democrats in CT tried to throw him out of office. Humpf! He'll show THEM. He'll show us all!

Lieberman can single handedly kill all hope for reform if he wants to and he knows it.

[karynnj]

14. There are many possible procedural votes that were once normally waived

The Republicans are forcing all of them to be done by roll call votes. (We did this this do on some things we filibustered - like one appropriations bill to remove legislation on drilling in ANWR.)

[Algorem]

15. "...We hope that we don't have to do it with Democrats..."-Harry Reid

yesterday.Freudian slip?

MSNBC added the "only"-

"We will reach out to our Republican colleagues," he said. "We would like to work with them. But everyone should understand, we're going to do a bill. We hope that we don't have to do it with Democrats, but if we have to we will."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/19/2132383.aspx

and when you cut and paste it,the "only" doesn't show up

[Better Believe It]

20. Any chance the Democratic majority might enact this new Senate rule?

How about requiring a cloture motion in order to require a cloture motion on a cloture motion to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed on a debate to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to a debate on the Senate health care bill?

That should give the Democrats even more excuses for failure and inaction on health care!

Might just have to make even more concessions to Senate conservatives in order to pass any kind of health insurance company legislation.

In any case, under no circumstances should the Democratic majority require Republicans to engage in a real "on the Senate floor" filibuster!

Surrender at all costs to Republican filibuster threats and bogus phantom "call it in" filibusters!

That's the ticket!

[Overseas]

21. Corporate support is more important to the Blue Dogs than Democratic Party unity.

Party block voting to allow debate has been customary. The GOP does that. The Democratic Party used to do that-- at least hang together to allow debate.

But corporate power is even stronger now. Private insurance really wants to protect its private profits and crush that public option.

They've seen us Democrats hold our noses and say let's just pass something-- get the ball rolling-- we can improve the bill later. So they are giving more "support" (a.k.a. bribes) to key ConservaDems and turncoats to get them to break precedent and not even allow a debate to get to the floor.

But we're close enough to having reform that private health insurers like, that protects their ability to keep raking in their private profits for a few more years, giving more "support" to legislators who can write in some neat loopholes, that those stalwart Corporate Democrats may just allow that debate after all.

[rhett o rick]

27. By threatening a filibuster over everything, the Republicants have changed the rules. The filibuster

was never intended to be used by a party to block all proceedings. It is time to end the filibuster rule. Time for the nuclear option that the republicants used, effectively, to threaten the Democrats when the republicants were in power.

[omega minimo]

30. Strategery

[ddeclue]

31. Why ARE 60 votes needed not "why IS 60 votes needed"

Signed the Grammar Nazis...

:P

[JackRiddler]

32. This could have been happening the whole time under Bush, but he didn't have an opposition.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!