A stupid Senate procedural question please, we still need 60 to close the debate? Right?

[Hamlette]

this is just the vote to bring it to the floor for a debate.

And the 44 major assholes, including 4 dems (cough) still need to vote to stop a filibuster which they have not yet committed to do.

(Sorry for asking such a dumb question, and yes I could look it up, but I'm thinking this would be quicker.)

While we're on the subject, the GOP's threats of holy war, what do they have short of filibuster? I know they will offer amendments but can't we stop that at some point?

[jenmito]

1. Right. And if they get 60 to cut off debate, THEN they can pass the bill with 50+1.

And those against a public option know their votes aren't needed for the final vote, so they say they won't vote for it to GET to a final vote.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. It's a wonder anything gets done with these rules.

[jenmito]

3. I know. And if we lose seats in '10, the Dems. better play as much hardball as the

Repubs. and Conservadems. Remember when they kept whining the right/fair thing is to allow for an up-or-down vote? Lieberman, too. Boy, how times change. :eyes:

[gateley]

13. I've heard so many say "Congress moves very slowly - that's the way it is." --

Even good guys (I'm thinking of Bernie Sanders who said it on Thom Hartmann yesterday.)

My question is -- does it HAVE to STAY that way? I know we need our checks and balances, but there just seems to be so much wasted time, so much politicking, when so much needs to be done. In a hurry! :shrug:

[Garam_Masala]

21. You will be the first to cry if repugs someday become majority

and with 51 votes can shove any piece of garbage through.

Yes, I like the idea of checks and balances.

[Better Believe It]

23. You're right. The Republicans only needed 51 votes. Democrats need 60 votes when they "control"

the Senate.

[pinto]

4. Or, they let it go to a final vote, vote against the bill, and the bill passes. n/t

[jenmito]

5. Lieberman and Lincoln both say they will not LET it go to a final vote if a public option remains in

the bill.

[pinto]

6. Ah, missed their statements.

Thanks for the follow-up.

[jenmito]

7. No problem.

Except for the 58 Dems. who want to allow a vote.

[Hamlette]

8. and Reid said yesterday "no reconciliation" does anyone know if that means ever or just today's vote

I can see him saying he won't use reconciliation because that way the asshole dems have to put up or shut up. They can't take a "principled" stand and still be in good standing with the party.

But has Reid said he will not use reconciliation to break a filibuster?

And, one more question, why the hell aren't we all screaming about these stupid Senate rules?

Yes, they save us once in a while when the GOP goes ape shit but the gain is not enough in my mind for us to lose on HCR.

[jenmito]

9. I don't know. He has also said, in the past, that he WOULD use reconciliation as a last resort-

that it's not something he WANTS to do. So, I have no idea. :shrug:

[jenmito]

10. This article shows the confusion: "Reid Rules Out Reconciliation?

And Reid, while he wouldn’t say if he has the 60 votes he will need to overcome those procedural hurdles, seemed to say he’ll avoid using the “reconciliation” process to bypass Republican and moderate Democratic opposition to pass a bill with only 50 votes.

“I’m not using reconciliation,” he told reporters.

The sound was pretty unequivocal and seemed different from months past when Reid would mention that he has reconciliation in his back pocket.

Reid spokesman said Reid has always been focused on getting a bill to pass through the Senate in normal order.

“For weeks if not months the only thing he has been working on is getting 60 votes,” Manley said."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/reid-rules-out-reconciliation-.html

[peaches2003]

11. Will Reid demand a real filibuster

and make them go to the floor and talk, talk, talk. Or will he allow the way they have done in recent years and demand the Repugs do nothing and let the bill die?

[Hamlette]

14. I hope not. It can end up making them look stronger

in the "See, we consider this to be so important, we will put up cots in the halls and stay here all night to protect Americans from the evil that is this bill and the democratic party."

Be careful what you wish for.

It isn't difficult to pull of a filibuster, 40 Senators, 24 hours in a day, each takes 36 minutes a day.

[karynnj]

16. Reid and Lieberman and Lincoln are possibly saying this for leverage

Lieberman and Lincoln obviously think they can still influence the bill. That Reid has assigned Schumer to work with them on this (which should not be held against Schumer ) suggests that this is the truth. Reid saying that is putting pressure on anyone on the right in the party and anyone who might want to vote no on the progressive side (ie Burris). The fact is that serious Senators, like Rockefeller, who once spoke of reconciliation have recently completely disowned that idea - Rockefeller humorously saying that he must have been drunk. There are major downsides to doing that.

[housewolf]

12. There are 3 points (Procedural Votes) at which we need 60 votes

today, when the vote is to allow debate on the bill.

Later, a second Procedural Vote needing 60 votes to pass is required to close debate on the bill and move it forward to an actual vote on the bill. If the bill passes, it goes into a process where it's merged with the bill the House voted on, then that new bill will come back to the Senate.

That bill then must come back to the Senate, where it needs its third Procedural Vote to allow the merged bill to be voted on.

At any point the bill can be fillibustered.

At least, that's how I understand it. What a complicated process! Someone explained this on CSpan's Washington Journal this morning, this is how I understood what he said.

[Hamlette]

15. thanks housewolf. n/t

[peaches2003]

17. That's correct

and good to post it. I am old enough to remember all the years that the threat of a filibuster was a rare rare exception and then filibusters had to be actually talking non-stop. Only recently, compatively speaking, does almost every vote need 60 votes and there is no such thing as a 'real' filibuster.

Does anyone know when and why this all changed? I miss the good old days.

[CTLawGuy]

18. well, earlier

the opposition parties were actually reasonable and DIDN'T attempt to filibuster everything. It doesn't help that Reid characterizes the 60 votes as a normal requirement for Dems rather than the extraordinary result of Republican obstructionism. I feel the Rs escape a lot of blame because of this.

I'd never heard of filibustering the mere consideration of a bill, though. That's a little ridiculous.

[peaches2003]

19. Like Hatch said, "It will be a Holy War".

The Repugs have turned everything into a Holy War so that the Dems don't get a victory no matter important to the country an issue is. Now even wanting to debate something has to be a total win/total lose situation. I am so sick of Congress. Does ANYONE think of the people anymore?

[Garam_Masala]

22. Thanks for that explanation +1

[Better Believe It]

20. And if the Republicans actually filibuster the Democrats can keep the bill on the floor ....

until the Republicans (and possibly Leiberman) run out of gas and 60 votes are achieved to break a real filibuster.

Of course, it seems that the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to cause Democratic leaders to wave a surrender flag or water down legislation even more until it becomes acceptable to Republican/Democratic Senate conservatives.