Can anyone present hard, detailed facts on Republican filibusters conducted this year?

[Better Believe It]

Can anyone here present some specific and detailed information on real Republican filibusters that have taken place this year?

If a genuine Republican filibuster took place one would be able to answer the following questions in detail about each filibuster:

When did the filibuster take place and on what bill?

How long did it last?

What Senator(s) actually filibustered against that bill and how long did they hold the floor?

How many votes (cloture) were taken to end the filibuster and what was the vote on each cloture motion?

And what was the outcome of that filibuster .... was the bill withdrawn or did it pass?

[ProSense]

1. Filibusters can prevent a bill from making it to the floor. Case in point:

Medicare Physicians Fairness Act of 2009

Thirteen members of the Democratic caucus joined with Republicans to kill that bill.

[timeforpeace]

15. So, no Republican filibusters this year? Thanks.

[Mz Pip]

2. I did a google search

Lots of info on filibusters but I couldn't find a list of all of them in one place. This is a prety good article, though with good info. Therre certainly has been an increase in them over time.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/12/27/2009-year-of-the-filibuster/


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/11/25/the-staggering-rise-of-the-filibuster.html

[SoFlaJet]

3. Who's Your Buddy BBI?

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

[Better Believe It]

8. Good article, thanks for the link.

It's about time that Democrats end that obstruction. They have the power. They seem to be very reluctant to use it.

Well, frequently these so-called filibusters, or the mere threat of a Republican filibuster, are enough to get some Democrats to wave the flag of surrender. And all too often it's just a convenient excuse for inaction.

[SoFlaJet]

9. Did you sign Alan Grayson's petition

to change the rules down from 60 to 55? Google Alan Grayson's petition...

[Better Believe It]

11. Yes, thanks for the information.

[onenote]

4. here you go

As I know you are aware (but for some reason are trying to make people think you aren't aware), there have been no "filibusters" of the sort where the floor is held and no other business is conducted.

However, since others might be interested, here are some "hard, detailed facts" on the repubs practice of forcing cloture votes on pending bills, amendments, motions, and nominations.

There have been over 300 recorded roll call votes in the senate since the Senate convened in January.
There have been around 30 cloture votes to cut off debate.
Twenty-six of these cloture votes passed (allowing the matter at issue to be considered).
Four cloture votes were rejected.
Of the four, three were later overturned, allowing the matter to proceed.
The three that were delayed included the nomination of David Hayes to be Dep Sec of the Interior (cloture rejected on May 13, nomination approved May 20); a vote on S.2847 (cloture rejected Oct. 13, cloture vote successfully reconsidered Nov 5); and a perfecting amendment to S.1023 (cloture June 22, cloture successfully reconsidered Sept 8).

The one instance where cloture was rejected and the bill has not yet moved is a bill amending the social security act (S.1776). Cloture was rejected on Oct 21.

Here is a link to a complete list of Senate votes. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_1.htm

[Better Believe It]

7. So there haven't been any Republican filibusters. That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it

"there have been no "filibusters" of the sort where the floor is held and no other business is conducted."

And as I'm sure you understand, The Democratic majority that runs the Senate could force Republicans to engage in real filibusters and thereby put an end their disruptive activities.

"There have been around 30 cloture votes to cut off debate."

What cloture votes to end filibuster "debates" do you have in mind? Some specifics please.

What legislation did the "filibuster debates" concern, how long did these "debates" last, who participated in them and how many cloture votes (if more than one) were held on the legislation to end those "debates"?

Perhaps the answer to the above questions might reveal the totally bogus nature of these alleged "filibuster debates". Now that just might be the real problem. If not, just provide some detailed information on these alleged filibuster "debates" which is your area of expertise.

Thanks for the list of Senate roll call votes, but that really doesn't have much to do with my questions regarding so-called Republican "filibusters" of legislation that have prevented Senate votes on legislation.

[onenote]

19. if your goal is to win Disingenuous DUer of the Year you can stop, the title is all yours

First, why don't you drop the act. You've posted about filibusters so often here that its just silly for you to pretend that you didn't know that there have been no traditional "hold the floor" type filibusters.

Second, I provided you a link that lists every single floor vote held by the Senate since January and if you had bothered to look at it you'd see that it provides a thumbnail description of the type of vote, the matter being voted on and links that will take you to the entire history of the legislation/nomination being considered, including the text and current status. It provides the specific roll call vote with each Senator's vote.

Oh, and I gave you the dates of when the cloture was defeated and, in the cases where it was brought up again and cloture passed, that date as well.

Again, the information you pretend to seek is in my post, either directly or in the link.

But then again, you're not interested. And that's why I indicated that i was providing that information for those reading this thread that actually might be interested, not you.

[Better Believe It]

24. So you acknowledge that Democrats haven't forced Republicans to filibuster. Thank you.

"there have been no traditional "hold the floor" type filibusters."

That's because the Democratic majority in the Senate has not forced the Republican Senators to take and hold the Senate floor in a "traditional" filibusters.

They can do that or they can use the so-called "nuclear option" to end Republican filibusters.

CASE CLOSE.

[onenote]

25. if you consider it a victory to claim i acknowledged something that i never denied

knock yourself out.

[Better Believe It]

26. You wrote ""there have been no traditional "hold the floor" type filibusters." I didn't write that.

So why has the Democratic leadership in the Senate refused to make the Republicans engage in authentic "traditional" filibusters?

As you know, they can do that.

Case closed.

[onenote]

27. what "case"?

You started this thread by asking for information about "real" filibusters, even though you were well aware that there had been none. I responded by noting that there had been no filibusters, but provided information about the number of cloture votes and their outcome.

You have decided that this closes some "case" -- although since you already knew the answer to your original question and no one disputed the point, I suggest you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for proving nothing that wasn't already known and conceded by everyone.

[Better Believe It]

28. The case for ending phantom Republican filibusters.

Make them filibuster on the Senate floor and tie up Congress and let's see how far the Republicans get before the public demands their heads!

So you're opposed to doing that and favor surrendering to bogus "filibusters" rather than support my position?

[Aramchek]

5. of course, it must all be the Democrats fault, right? they're obstructing themselves...

:sarcasm:

[SoFlaJet]

6. no....

Obama's...duh

[Aramchek]

10. how could I be so dim? of course, Obama is the root of all evil

[SoFlaJet]

13. If only he were pure and simple like say, oh...

Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader or Ron Paul...

[Aramchek]

16. because they've accomplished so much for this Country, right?

they're so pure, they cannot sully themselves with getting anything done.

[johnaries]

12. Obviously, you don't understand how filibusters work.

Soemtimes they won't attempt to bring a bill to the floor until they know they have enough votes. If they do a poll and find that a bill doesn't have enough support to get past a filibuster to open debate, they won't attempt it. So just the threat of a filibuster can sometimes work as well as the filibuster itself.

[Better Believe It]

14. Yet another excuse for not challenging the Republican minority.

"Soemtimes they won't attempt to bring a bill to the floor until they know they have enough votes. If they do a poll and find that a bill doesn't have enough support to get past a filibuster to open debate, they won't attempt it. So just the threat of a filibuster can sometimes work as well as the filibuster itself."

You're making my point when you wrote "the threat of a filibuster can sometimes work as well as the filibuster itself."

EXACTLY! BINGO!

It certainly has and I won't dispute that. In fact, that's major problem which the Democratic majority has been unwilling to fight.

The mere threat of a filibuster has worked out just wonderfully for the Republican minority. So Democrats withhold legislation or put it on the back burner until they are guaranteed 60 votes before a filibuster even takes place! They like to handcuff themselves.

Before a real filibuster begins a Harry Reid "poll" might indicate that "only" 57 or 58 Senators are against permitting any Senate floor debate to start because of the scary threat of a Republican filibuster. But, once an actual debate begins on the Senate floor additional Senators will vote at some point in favor of ending debate, cloture, if any actual filibuster begins.

How long might it be? Well, you could have several cloture votes and a Republican filibuster might tie up the Senate for a few hours or even a few days before it is broken.

But all filibusters end and if the Senate Democrats can't break a Republican one they are much weaker incompetent than I thought.

If you don't force a genuine filibuster, you can twiddle your thumbs and wait or weeks or months to get those elusive 60 votes to stop a real filibuster from ever starting. Of course, you might never get those votes with that tactic or you could just surrender (as has happened all too often) and let the legislation die (withdraw it) in the face of a filibuster threat.

[johnaries]

17. FAIL! "all filibusters end." No, they don't. They never end. That's

why they are so effective. The filibuster never ends, so the bill can never be brought to a vote.

As I said, you obviously don't understand.

[Better Believe It]

18. "Filibusters never end" So Strom Thurmond is still filibustering the 1957 Civil Rights Act?

I think he's dead or Thurmond is 107 years old and still won't leave the Senate floor!

:)

Well, from your latest comment it's obvious your knowledge of Senate procedures and filibusters is at best wanting.

Since filibusters never end, do they just sort of fade away? History and facts are in conflict with your assertion.


The Civil Rights Act of 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted by Congress in the United States since Reconstruction. After it was proposed to Congress by then-President Dwight Eisenhower, Senator James Strom Thurmond sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep it from becoming law. His one-man filibuster consisted of 24 hours and 18 minutes of readings from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Washington’s Farewell Address, and various phone books. His speech set the record for a Senate filibuster.<1> The bill passed the House with a vote of 270 to 97 and the Senate 60 to 15. President Eisenhower signed it on 9 September 1957.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

So according to you the filibuster against the 1964 Civil Right Act hasn't ended .... it's still going on!!!!

Sorry, but you're wrong again.

June 10, 1964
Civil Rights Filibuster Ended

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

[Zynx]

20. Think about the consequence of fighting out every filibuster.

We would never get important legislation passed because they would fight until the 2010 elections on that and other items would never be addressed because the Senate's time would be monopolized.

[Better Believe It]

21. You mean the Republicans would shut down the Senate until after the 2010 elections?

Sure. The Senate wouldn't be able to pass anything due to a one year filibuster. That would transform the Republican party into a tiny party, it would guarantee their utter destruction in the 2010 elections, the party that brought America and its economy down!

Let's get real. No more nonsense please.

The cost of doing nothing to force Republicans to filibuster is withdrawing legislation, making huge concessions to Republicans or a total surrender to Republican demands.

Which of the above do you prefer?

It's amazing how some are so afraid of the big, bad and scary Republican minority.

[Zynx]

22. It's a risk because people might say alternatively that the Democrats are being

unreasonable and aren't willing to compromise and that's the reason that legislation is getting held up. With the way that these arguments have gone in the past I would not be surprised.

[Better Believe It]

23. Well Democrats certainly can't take risks now, can they?

It's far better to surrender or at least cave in (compromise) to Republican demands.

If we don't, Republicans will attack Democrats!

"people might say alternatively that the Democrats are being unreasonable"

And what people might say that? Republican leaders who say that no matter how much Democrats "compromise" and surrender to Republican demands!