Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1999 there were 5,514 bills introduced in Congress, but only 300 of them passed
This doesnt mean that you had 5,214 filibusters..
In 2008 there were 10,537 bills. Again, many of them didnt pass. that doesnt mean you had 10,000 filibusters..
You guys are killing me trying to claim failed bills are filubusters.. It just proves how many here have no clue about the process
Of course not. First off the vast majority of bills introduced do not make it out of committee. So a bill that doesn't make it out of committee is obviously not a filibuster. Even the majority of the bills that make it out of committee do not have enough votes for majority support. That is not a filibuster either. Those would follow the line of your comment about failed bills.
However, a filibuster is something that has the support of the majority of Senators, but a final up or down vote on the bill is blocked. That is what is happening here. This bill has a clear majority of Senators, but the GOP is threatening to block a final up or down vote from taking place.
Of course not. First off the vast majority of bills introduced do not make it out of committee. So a bill that doesn't make it out of committee is obviously not a filibuster. Even the majority of the bills that make it out of committee do not have enough votes for majority support. That is not a filibuster either. Those would follow the line of your comment about failed bills.
However, a filibuster is something that has the support of the majority of Senators, but a final up or down vote on the bill is blocked. That is what is happening here. This bill has a clear majority of Senators, but the GOP is threatening to block a final up or down vote from taking place.
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
I'll give you the chance to backup your claim.
Where is the debating at length taking part? Looks like they scheduled a vote
What are the numerous procedural motions filed? You cant schedule a vote with a procedural motion being filed and again, there is a scheduled vote.
What other delaying or obstructive actions are being used? Again, they scheduled a vote.
Voting NO is not a delaying tactic or obstuctive actions. They are allowing the vote to take place.. You just dont like the outcome..
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
I'll give you the chance to backup your claim.
Where is the debating at length taking part? Looks like they scheduled a vote
What are the numerous procedural motions filed? You cant schedule a vote with a procedural motion being filed and again, there is a scheduled vote.
What other delaying or obstructive actions are being used? Again, they scheduled a vote.
Voting NO is not a delaying tactic or obstuctive actions. They are allowing the vote to take place.. You just dont like the outcome..
They aren't allowing a final up or down vote on the bill. That is what they are blocking. They are voting AGAINST cutting off debate on the bill therefore not allowing the bill to proceed to a final up or down vote.
They aren't allowing a final up or down vote on the bill. That is what they are blocking. They are voting AGAINST cutting off debate on the bill therefore not allowing the bill to proceed to a final up or down vote.
Project Vote Smart - GOVERNMENT 101: How a Bill Becomes Law
[LEFT]Senate: debate is unlimited unless cloture is invoked. Members can speak as long as they want and amendments need not be germane - riders are often offered. Entire bills can therefore be offered as amendments to other bills. Unless cloture is invoked, Senators can use a filibuster to defeat a measure by "talking it to death." [/LEFT]
The bill isnt being "talked" to death.. The GOP isnt supporting the bill. They said NO Its not being debated.. The Democrats dont like the result so they are invoking cloture to push the bill forward.. But that doesnt mean its filibustered. It COULD be filibustered if they decide to continue to debate and discuss the bill but voting no on a bill doesnt mean its filibustered. The bill ISNT SUPPORTED.. ITS DEAD.. Its not being debated.. If the Democrats want to remove things from the bill, such as the illegal immigrants to becoming citizens, the DADT amendments, the parts of the bill killing american jobs, GOP said they would support it.
The bill has been sitting FOR YEARS, even when Democrats had 100% control of Congress.. Again, why didn you Democrats pass the bill? Fact is you guys set it asside to deal with "more important issues"
YOU GUYS didnt pass it and now you want to blame the GOP. Btw, how many have died waiting for the Democrats to get their **** together?
Project Vote Smart - GOVERNMENT 101: How a Bill Becomes Law
[LEFT]Senate: debate is unlimited unless cloture is invoked. Members can speak as long as they want and amendments need not be germane - riders are often offered. Entire bills can therefore be offered as amendments to other bills. Unless cloture is invoked, Senators can use a filibuster to defeat a measure by "talking it to death."
The bill isnt being "talked" to death.. The GOP isnt supporting the bill. They said NO Its not being debated.. The Democrats dont like the result so they are invoking cloture to push the bill forward.. But that doesnt mean its filibustered... The bill ISNT SUPPORTED.. ITS DEAD.. Its not being debated..
The bill has been sitting FOR YEARS, even when Democrats had 100% control of Congress.. Again, why didn you Democrats pass the bill? Fact is you guys set it asside to deal with "more important issues"
YOU GUYS didnt pass it and now you want to blame the GOP. Btw, how many have died waiting for the Democrats to get their **** together?
[/LEFT]
Not allowing a bill to come to an up or down vote when it has majority support by blocking it via a cloture vote is a filibuster. The bill has the majority support, the GOP is not allowing an up or down vote from taking place. That is a filibuster.
When the GOP had control of the Senate, the Dems blocked about 3% of the Judges George W Bush tried to confirm. The judges generally had majority support, but the Democrats blocked a final up or down vote from taking place by voting against cloture. The Majority leader at the time Bill Frist called what the Dems did a filibuster. Was Frist wrong by referring to it as a filibuster?
Not allowing a bill to come to an up or down vote when it has majority support by blocking it via a cloture vote is a filibuster. The bill has the majority support, the GOP is not allowing an up or down vote from taking place. That is a filibuster.
The GOP said they arent supporting the bill.. Period.. You dont like the results so you come here and you whine.. It only becomes a filibuster if the vote is delayed.. Its not being delayed.. They said no.. You can whine about the non support, thats one thing, but to call it something that its not is something else.
In the mid 1970's the filibuster rules were changed which required 41 Senators to state they intend to filibuster to qualify as a filibuster. This bill has 42 Senators who say they dont support the bill. Thats not the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
When the GOP had control of the Senate, the Dems blocked about 3% of the Judges George W Bush tried to confirm. The judges generally had majority support, but the Democrats blocked a final up or down vote from taking place by voting against cloture. The Majority leader at the time Bill Frist called what the Dems did a filibuster. Was Frist wrong by referring to it as a filibuster?
Democrats invoked their right to keep talking... Senate confirms Bush court nominee - Politics - msnbc.com Democrats in turn threatened to disrupt the work of the Senate if they lost their right to keep talking unless 60 members voted to end debate.
Is the GOP claiming they want to keep talking about this bill tying up the Senate until the issue is resolved? If they are then I'm wrong but I havent heard anything saying the GOP wants to keep talking about the bill.. I've seen that they oppose the bill, and reasons for the opposition.. but nothing to indicate they wish to keep discussing it putting off any other legislation until this is delt with. Everything I've read indicates they are voting no and want to move onto other business..
Quick question since you've avoided the other ones.. Does voting no on this bill, disrupt the work of the Senate, or will they go onto other things while ironing out details? A filibuster stops the Senate from doing anything else until this is resolved..
The GOP said they arent supporting the bill.. Period.. You dont like the results so you come here and you whine.. It only becomes a filibuster if the vote is delayed.. Its not being delayed.. They said no.. You can whine about the non support, thats one thing, but to call it something that its not is something else.
In the mid 1970's the filibuster rules were changed which required 41 Senators to state they intend to filibuster to qualify as a filibuster. This bill has 42 Senators who say they dont support the bill. Thats not the same.
A cloture only limits the vote to 30 hours. Without the cloture a bill
Democrats invoked their right to keep talking... Senate confirms Bush court nominee - Politics - msnbc.com Democrats in turn threatened to disrupt the work of the Senate if they lost their right to keep talking unless 60 members voted to end debate.
Are the GOP claiming they want to keep talking about this bill? If they are then I'm wrong but I havent heard anything saying the GOP wants to keep talking about the bill.. I've seen that they oppose the bill, and reasons for the opposition.. but nothing to indicate they wish to keep discussing it putting off any other legislation until this is delt with. Everything I've read indicates they are voting no and want to move onto other business..
They aren't saying they would keep talking, but by voting against cloture they are voting against cutting off debate. Its a way to delay and stop a final up or down vote from taking place. That is exactly what a filibuster is. Voting not to cut debate off and therefore delaying or blocking a final up or down vote from taking place is a filibuster whether or not you actually plan on having more debate.
They aren't saying they would keep talking, but by voting against cloture they are voting against cutting off debate. Its a way to delay and stop a final up or down vote from taking place. That is exactly what a filibuster is. Voting not to cut debate off and therefore delaying or blocking a final up or down vote from taking place is a filibuster whether or not you actually plan on having more debate.
A filibuster shuts down the senate until the issue is resolved and doesnt allow anything else to move forward
Conducting a filibuster by extended debate is simple, though it can be physically demanding. A Senator seeks recognition and, once recognized, speaks at length. When that first Senator concludes and yields the floor, another Senator seeks recognition and continues the debate. The debate can proceed in this way until all the participating Senators have made their two speeches on the pending question. Then it usually is possible to offer an amendment, or make some other motion, in order to create a new debatable question, on which the same Senators can make two more speeches.
There is no need for the participating Senators to monopolize the debate. What is important is that someone speak, not that it be someone on their side of the question. Although one purpose of a
]filibuster is to try to change the minds of Senators who support the question being debated, the purpose of delay is served by Senators speaking, no matter which side of the question they take
Almost every bill, indeed, is potentially subject to two filibusters before the Senate votes on whether to pass it: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration; and second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself.
Under the current scenario,
1) there is no filibuster on the motion to proceed the bill to consideration. The vote has been scheduled
2) after the Senate agrees to the motion. Which isnt relevant since no on has agreed to the motion.
3) No one is tying up the Senate floor (which is what a filibuster is) and shutting down the Senate discussing the issue forever.
Again, this bill is NOT being filibustered.. There is no shutting down of the Senate taking place..
In this issue the Democrats want 60 supporters so it avoids any THREAT of a filibuster, but voting no doesnt mean that one takes place.
Conducting a filibuster by extended debate is simple, though it can be physically demanding. A Senator seeks recognition and, once recognized, speaks at length. When that first Senator concludes and yields the floor, another Senator seeks recognition and continues the debate. The debate can proceed in this way until all the participating Senators have made their two speeches on the pending question. Then it usually is possible to offer an amendment, or make some other motion, in order to create a new debatable question, on which the same Senators can make two more speeches.
There is no need for the participating Senators to monopolize the debate. What is important is that someone speak, not that it be someone on their side of the question. Although one purpose of a
]filibuster is to try to change the minds of Senators who support the question being debated, the purpose of delay is served by Senators speaking, no matter which side of the question they take
Almost every bill, indeed, is potentially subject to two filibusters before the Senate votes on whether to pass it: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration; and second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself.
Under the current scenario,
1) there is no filibuster on the motion to proceed the bill to consideration. The vote has been scheduled
2) after the Senate agrees to the motion. Which isnt relevant since no on has agreed to the motion.
3) No one is tying up the Senate floor (which is what a filibuster is) and shutting down the Senate discussing the issue forever.
Again, this bill is NOT being filibustered.. There is no shutting down of the Senate taking place..
In this issue the Democrats want 60 supporters so it avoids any THREAT of a filibuster, but voting no doesnt mean that one takes place.
A filibuster doesn't have to be shutting down the Senate. Blocking an up or down vote from taking place when the bill has majority support is still a filibuster whether or not the government gets shut down as a result
A filibuster doesn't have to be shutting down the Senate. Blocking an up or down vote from taking place when the bill has majority support is still a filibuster whether or not the government gets shut down as a result
Yes it does.. threat of a filibuster doesnt shut down the senate, but a filibuster itself doesnt allow anything else to take place because it ties up the Senate floor not allowing any other debate. I linked you right to the Senates own website with the document outlining the steps involved. Did you even read the document?
This tells you how you get a filibuster Almost every bill, indeed, is potentially subject to two filibusters before the Senate votes on whether to pass it: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration; and second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself.
This tells you what a filibuster is
Conducting a filibuster by extended debate is simple, though it can be physically demanding. A Senator seeks recognition and, once recognized, speaks at length. When that first Senator concludes and yields the floor, another Senator seeks recognition and continues the debate. The debate can proceed in this way until all the participating Senators have made their two speeches on the pending question. Then it usually is possible to offer an amendment, or make some other motion, in order to create a new debatable question, on which the same Senators can make two more speeches
It essentially shuts down the Senate because they cant make speeches on other topics to debate. Do you think you know more than the Senate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
