Why not do away with the 60-vote rule for debate but keep the filibuster in place?

[kentuck]

I don't know that anything will change until the leadership is changed in both Parties? But how many times have we been pissed off at Harry Reid because Democrats have the votes to pass legislation but don't have the 60 votes to debate it?

If they were to keep the filibuster in place, just like it is in the Constitution, requiring two/thirds to over-ride, how many actual filibusters would we see from Mitch McConnell and the Republicans? My guess is that they would drop off considerably.

So you are against the bill, Republicans? Well, stand your sorry asses up on the floor of the Senate and talk to your heart's content. We are going to pass this bill with a simple majority unless you want to do a real filibuster.

This lack of leadership is one of the major reasons we are where we are today. No backbone and no desire to fight.

[PoliticAverse]

1. "If they were to keep the filibuster in place, just like it is in the Constitution"

The filibuster isn't in the Constitution, it is purely a senate rule that the senate can change
at their whim.

[kentuck]

4. Maybe it is just standard law?

Here is an interesting description, I think?


"A filibuster in the United States Senate usually refers to any dilatory or obstructive tactics used to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when a senator attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a bill by extending the debate on the measure, but other dilatory tactics exist. The rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[1] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with the votes of two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needed to end debate.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the Senate's presiding officer could on motion declare a Senate rule unconstitutional, which decision can be upheld by a simple majority vote of the Senate."

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

[PoliticAverse]

6. "According to the Supreme Court ... changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority"

[kudzu22]

2. What's the difference?

The 60-vote rule is the filibuster rule. It takes 60 votes to end debate.

[kentuck]

3. I don't think so?

I thought Byrd created a bill to stop debate at 60 votes but it did not replace the filibuster? I may be wrong??

[Major Nikon]

5. This explains the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#History

[kentuck]

8. I love a day where I can learn something.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#History

"Procedure

The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. To invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate Rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators "present and voting&quot still applies.[12]"

[Cleita]

7. The 60 vote rule or two-thirds majority rule keeps the minority in power.

I believe it was carefully calculated to be so. We need to go back to the simpler majority rule even if it's 50/51. Also, we need to keep the filibuster but the old-fashioned one where you have to stand up, talk non-stop and piss in a bucket type filibuster.

[kentuck]

11. I would make one suggestion:

That it would have to sunset in 4 years if not voted to continue, by simple majority. In other words, review it every four years by simple majority.

[Cleita]

12. That would be better than what we have now. n/t

[Recursion]

9. The 60-rule vote for debate is the filibuster

The Strom Thurmond reading from the phone book stuff is just for PR.

[99Forever]

10. The 60 vote "closure rule,"...

... is the cover Harry Reid and Company to hide behind so they don't ever pass legislation that might do some actual good for the People. It's easier to do your 1%er owner's bidding, when you can point at "those mean, evil Republicans" and whine they won't let us, they "said" they were going to "filibuster." (Which btw, doesn't mean that they actually "filibuster" an effen thing.)

Thanks Harry, you are a fucking peach.

[kentuck]

13. I tend to agree.

I know what they are worried about but they can't let that freeze them into total inaction.

The house is burning and you're trying to figure out what bucket you want to use-type thinking...

When it is time for a decision on hard issues, the Leader needs to be strong enough to change the rules by simple majority. If the other side disagrees, then they can set a time for debate. There is an allotted time to each side. The Leader says the rule will be changed by a simple majority. If they disagree, they can filibuster the legislation when it is brought up to be voted on. They would need two-thirds to stop the filibuster.

[kentuck]

14. Also, I would add...

That there should be a sunset rule on every rule change such as this. It should be voted upon, by simple majority, every four years. If the rule did not get required majority of 51, then the law would resort back to where it is now.

[99Forever]

15. Unfortunately...

... with Spineless Harry as Speaker, that is never going to happen.