60 votes....Why?

[Are_grits_groceries]

But strangely enough, the requirement for a supermajority comes indirectly from the Constitution itself, which permits each chamber to fix its own procedural rules. The Senate now has a rule which can close debate by a three-fifths vote of all Senators or 60 votes. The rule and its predecessors sprung from the principle that absent a cloture rule, a senator could speak indefinitely--filibuster in order to defeat legislation.

If a judge declares a statute invalid, conservatives frequently complain that such judges are "liberal activists, thwarting the will of the majority," but "thwarting" apparently is in the eyes of the beholder. Under the current rule, as in the case of health care, a minority can thwart the will of the majority, even a majority of 59%--both in the country and the Senate (although the percentage in the nation favoring such legislation may be even higher). Any political party that wishes to change this rule in order to permit the adoption of particular legislation or confirmation of a particular nominee by a majority vote has to bear in mind that one day it will be in the minority and might very well regret the unavailability of this obstructionist weapon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-60-vote-rule---whats_b_347043.html

Out of thirty-six weeks in session this year, the US Senate has had four weeks of working sessions
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse:
Four weeks. What happened to the other thirty-two weeks? They were sucked up by Republican filibusters. That's right: Republican filibusters. Remember the people who hate the filibuster so much that they were willing to "Go nuclear"? Them.
There have been ninety filibusters this year and there's no end in sight. Ninety. I sat there wondering why the Democrats had not gotten this message out to American citizens (because you have to admit that "Republicans have obstructed the United States Senate's work for thirty-two weeks this year" is a pretty compelling message) when Whitehouse told us that the Democrats have realized that they need to take that message to the people.

http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com /

These have to be the 'silent filibusters'. They need to be done away with now. They have changed voting in the Senate from requiring a simple majority to requiring enough votes for cloture. In addition, citizens don't realize what is really going on. The silent filibuster is a lazy method, and a way for Senators to avoid bad publicity if they want to halt a proposal.

Silent filibusters:

The "traditional" filibuster custom was significantly changed only a few years ago to allow senators to "filibuster" without actually speaking and consuming their own time. The relatively new "silent" filibusters are anything but traditional. Classic filibusters took senators out of important committee meetings and kept them up nights for as long as they intended to block Senate action. Such was the price of minority rule.

The new silent filibuster is just way too convenient. Ten Senators sign a piece of paper and boom, the object of their wrath requires a 60% supermajority to pass. With this stupid rule, virtually all Senate action now requires a 60% supermajority, something not required by the US Constitution.

By eliminating the cost of filibustering, the new rules have effectively undermined majority rule, a cornerstone (along with enumerated powers) of our constitutional republic. Thus, the silent filibuster has led directly to the unpleasant situation in which the Senate now finds itself.

[annabanana]

1. There is no HONEST reason for a "silent" filibuster.

The only reason they exist is to keep the public in the dark.

[vadawg]

2. i think they want it to fail, i think they dont think its a good healthcare bill

they are looking for cover either from having pubs vote with them on it or being able to say the pubs stopped it, i genuinely think they have bought a hedgehog and have no clay to cook it in and now they are scared of what will be the end result...

[annabanana]

3. What bill? This OP is about the filibuster in general. . .n/t

[vadawg]

5. i am talking in particular about the health bill... sorry if i didnt mae it clear

[mmonk]

4. I remember threats of a nuclear option. I remember threats

of VP Dick Cheney breaking ties. The Democratic Party of today is the weakest political party in US history. They are too weak to govern. The reason behind it is they are more aligned with Republicans as a body than the people who elect them.

[annabanana]

6. If I remember correctly... that talk was re: Alito and other

judicial nominees... Rember the calls for "upper down votes"?

[mmonk]

7. Yes, I remember that.

And I also remember the threat of the VP pushing to break ties and change Senate rules (which is a violation of separation of powers).

[mmonk]

8. The "Byrd" rule

It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable. Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation. But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.

Taken as a whole, the uncertainty of the reconciliation process transforms it into a game of chicken: If Republicans refuse to cooperate with health reform and force Democrats to resort to reconciliation, no one knows what will emerge out of the other end. Republicans might have no input, but Democrats will be at the mercy of an obscure bureaucrat's interpretation of an undefined Senate rule. It's the legislative equivalent of deciding a bill on penalty kicks.

What should not be missed in all this is the absurdity that is the contemporary Senate. You need 50 votes to pass a bill. You need 60 votes to overcome a parliamentary trick that allows 40 senators to talk about cheese whiz until everyone else heads home for the night. But some priorities -- deficit reduction and the budget among them -- were judged too important to face the filibuster. There was no particular rationale given for that shortcut, but the relevant senators have clung tightly to its terms. Last week, Sen. Robert Byrd, now in his late 80s, reiterated that reconciliation was "a process intended for deficit reduction," and using it for health reform and cap and trade "is an outrage that must be resisted."

But the reconciliation process has been used for plenty that did not reduce deficits. Both of President Bush's tax-cut plans traveled through the process. And the very senators who speak reverentially of the filibuster now, voted for reconciliation then. Judd Gregg, in fact, voted for reconciliation every time it was used in the Bush era.

-snip-

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fifty_vote_senate

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. With the 'silent filibuster',

the Senators don't even need to talk about cheeze wiz for hours. Ten of them signing a piece of paper will stop an issue in its tracks unless the Dems break them. This method is now being used on everything. It is being applied as never before.

[mmonk]

10. Obstruction without effort or required action.

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. Somebody needs to stomp on them and

get them out of their easy chairs.

[mmonk]

13. We can always saw the legs off or burn the upholstery.

[Bitwit1234]

12. It would make a difference to this bunch of democrats

most who were in the senate with bush. They are too chicken to use it anyway. If they had we wouldn't have had a lot of the bills passed that stripped us of our freedoms, that the republicans are now blaming democrats for anyway.