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.
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?
Blocking a bill from getting an up or down vote that has majority is still a filibuster. Even if you aren't technically shutting down the Senate its still blocking and delaying an up or down vote on a piece of legislation and is a filibuster.
Granted, reid could force both sides to yell and scream at one another and stay on the floor all night, but even if that isn't the case, blocking a bill that has majority support from having an up or down vote is a filibuster. That is how Frist viewed it when he was in charge, that is how McConnell views it as well.
Blocking a bill from getting an up or down vote that has majority is still a filibuster. Even if you aren't technically shutting down the Senate its still blocking and delaying an up or down vote on a piece of legislation and is a filibuster.
Granted, reid could force both sides to yell and scream at one another and stay on the floor all night, but even if that isn't the case, blocking a bill that has majority support from having an up or down vote is a filibuster. That is how Frist viewed it when he was in charge, that is how McConnell views it as well.
I gave you documents right to the Senate websites telling you the two requirements to equal a filibuster. You can continue to argue with them because this does not meet the standard for either. I've quoted them now twice to you and yet somehow you think you know more than the Senate on how the Senate operates..
Blocking a bill is killing the bill, not a filibuster, a filibuster by nature shuts down congress. If you diagree with this, then please tell the Senate they dont know what they are doing, but I for one will take Senates word on how Senate operates from Senate, not an anonymous poster online..
Motion to proceed with the bill was blocked strictly on a party line vote of 57-42 (58-41). All Democrats voted in favor, all Republicans voted against (Brownback did not vote), Reid switched his vote from yes to no as a procedural move so he can bring the bill up for another vote
Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure, while Democrats, led by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York, have argued that the nation had a moral obligation to assist those who put their lives at risk during rescue operations at ground zero.
Funding was JUST APPROVED for a fund in November to pay for the health care of first responders.
Quote:
The settlement—which could direct as much as $815 million to some 10,500 police officers, firefighters, construction workers and others exposed to World Trade Center dust and debris—doesn't necessarily cover everyone.
The settlement—which could direct as much as $815 million to some 10,500 police officers, firefighters, construction workers and others exposed to World Trade Center dust and debris—doesn't necessarily cover everyone.
My hang up here is trying to understand why do police officers, firefighters and construction workers need funding for health care. Don't they belong to unions with cadillac benefits?
And now they're looking for more? What, they want congress to bail out them out, too?
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.