Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"The minority would basically control the Senate"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:54 PM
Original message
"The minority would basically control the Senate"
<snip>


Basically, without 60 votes, under Senate rules, debate could go on forever and ever. This is called the filibuster. So basically, if Brown wins in Massachusetts tomorrow, the Republicans, with 41 votes, would have enough votes as the minority to prevent the Democrats, the majority with 59 votes, from ever bringing a final vote on health care reform or any other legislative priority to the floor. The minority would basically control the Senate.

In a speech last night to supporters in Florida, Vice President Joe Biden, who spent more than half of his life in the Senate, criticized the situation and the need for a 60 vote super-majority to get anything accomplished. "As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators," he said.

"No democracy has survived needing a super majority," added the vice president.

<snip>

From a CBS article, explaining the "super majority" to more mainstream, non-politics obsessed readers. The question is, why the hell is this never the case when the Dems are in the "minority?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113243.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. It already does.
So whatelse is new?

For me it's all about the SCOTUS because you can count on the Repugs to fillibuster any and all of Obama's future pics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. My thouhts exactly
Amazing, isn't it? This is America, and look at what we've become with these knuckle draggers leading the majority around by the nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. +10000000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, the Democrats had total contorl of the Senate under the Bush years then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krawhitham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
23. and the caved
it they would have stuck together the repukes could not have passed anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Funny, this didn't happen when the Repubs had a majority but lacked a supermajority..
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. funny indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. It did in fact when the Republicans wanted to privatize social security
The fact is that most of the Republican agenda is basically wars and tax cuts. Wars are primarily conducted by the executive branch and tax cuts can be done through reconciliation. Republicans (in general) don't create big new government programs unless they are security related and when they did that they effectively used 9/11 to make Democrats cave on those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. TARP: Proposed on Sept 19, 2008, enacted Oct 3, 2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
20. Dems are not locksteppers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Exactly. No one has ever "needed" 60 votes until we got them
Something is very fishy.

Repubs never had this number but now all of a sudden we need every one to accomplish anything. BS.

The Republicans can have 51 in the Senate counting a VP tie breaker and do anything they like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Well, we have Dems who sometimes vote GOP. There aren't GOP who voted Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. It's a shame but we had a bunch of Dems in the Senate who voted Bush's agenda
I think they started out opposing him, somewhat. After all, the Republicans had to do the tax cut under reconciliation but after 9/11 everyone was peeing the panties that someone might call them unpatriotic or some other nationalistic slur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. Because he's lying?
Biden himself was part of the Democratic group of Senators that were able to use the threat of filibuster to stop, among other things, some of the more radical Bush appointments. Now suddenly it turns the Constitution on its head? Then what were you doing, Joe, in between the time you swore an oath to the Constitution as a Senator, and the present?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
21.  I will tell you what he means. Last year 139 cloture votes were forced by the republicans.
That's twice as many as ever before in history. At least recent history. Time to dump the filibuster rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. The Dems don't do this because Dems believe in working to run an effective
government. The Rethugs don't believe government can do anything effectively, and they work to prove that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. Democratic Senators only get three-fifths of a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I think you've found the answer, tridim. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Haha! loves me the constitutional humor!nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. True and infuriating.
I know they don't want to go nuclear due to the fact that it would be a problem if the Republicans ever regained control but it does seem now would be the time to do it if there ever was a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. very good. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
13. You see, this is why I want Coakley to win
So the Democrats can't use this whole "don't have sixty votes" bullshit as one more excuse for their being unable to do a single thing right.

Geez, how did those previous Democratic Congresses ever accomplish anything when they only had a bit over fifty votes in the Senate? Oh, yeah, that's right, they had a spine and knew how to fight, traits that are sadly lacking in this Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StreetKnowledge Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. It didn't hurt that the other side had people with a brain.
Not today for the GOP. All of the GOP are either knuckle-draggers or scared to death of the knuckle draggers. That's why I must say this - if the teabag nutter wins tomorrow, Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes. Gingrich already gave him the precedent in 1996. Use it, Barack, and let the voters decide if they don't like your policies by putting the GOP back in. Run reconciliation on everything, and to hell with the Rethugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. they already control it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC