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.
So the Senate will need 51 votes? They had 57 for HR4213 on the last failed vote. So ya looks strong to pass. Question is, the House is set to vote for simple majority, 219 votes, on its stand alone version, so which ever chamber passes it first the other chamber has to vote on the new version?
They will... if they are willing to make a party-line vote. As far as I know, they have the votes for a simple majority. That's called nuclear option and is usually very unpopular with the public. But they might be willing to do it.
My hope is that the democrats are willing to give a bit to the republicans, and that the republicans are willing to give a bit to the democrats. Otherwise it makes the democrats do this party-line.
If you read the blogs out there, some people think Reid's call for cloture is a sign he's got the 60 votes, since he "promised" he wouldn't bring the UE back to the floor unless he was sure it would pass. So either he's confident, or once again, wanting to force the republicans to vote "against" something.
I'm hoping he has the 60.
As far as which bill could be the final one the senate votes on, I don't know.
Maybe Reid pulled this latest stunt because he didn't want Pelosi and the House getting all the glory. It would make him look bad if he sat back and had someone else do the work.
Just a thought.
I think you guys are onto something here. The premeditation of this wouldn't be so bad if we were not the pawns they were using but it's what power and desperation seem to induce in our congressman. That's why the power of the vote and the threat of losing their seat is the only thing that will keep this cat and mouse game to a minimum. We need to play this equally as premeditated by the suggestive calls made to their offices that indicate being fed up and a demand for action. Our leverage is in the 'numbers' of voters that call. It's good that these posts are put up though because we become aware of the game of survival they are playing and the illusions they use to distract us.
So the Senate will need 51 votes? They had 57 for HR4213 on the last failed vote. So ya looks strong to pass. Question is, the House is set to vote for simple majority, 219 votes, on its stand alone version, so which ever chamber passes it first the other chamber has to vote on the new version?
Maybe there's a race to see which chamber comes up with it first, in order to claimhero status, in an election year it's pressure to be the chamber to gain the favor of the voters.
Maybe there's a race to see which chamber comes up with it first, in order to claimhero status, in an election year it's pressure to be the chamber to gain the favor of the voters.
Only thing needs to be pointed out is that if there is a simple majority, it is called the "nuclear option". I could be mistaken, but previous posts here suggested that the senate passing bills with a simple majority is commonplace, it isn't. It does happen but the word "nuclear" is attached to it, and it's a last resort. Just have to point that out. There is a stigma to it, but there is nothing at all to stop them from embracing that stigma if they think in the long run it will hurt the other guy.
Right now it's either claim hero or blame the other guy. I'm going to hope that Reid really does think he has the 60 votes and that his cloture is a signal this is done. NOT that he wants to force the republicans, yet again, to vote against extensions. Hopefully he kept his word, and only filed "if he was sure it would pass."
If Reid has been having a pow-wow with republicans today, then suddenly filed for cloture, it could be a good indication that this homebuyer's tax credit thing got snowe and collins/brown onboard. COULD.
If that's not the case, they have the choice to bargain some more with the passed House vote. They still would have ONE MORE chance to get those 60 votes. But if they don't want to do that, and really want to stick it to the republicans, then they will go nuclear.
It's an election year, they are desperate, so the nuclear option will give them a partial victory, and make it seem like the republicans hate us. Downside for the democrats is the stigma attached to majority rule, and not bipartisanship.
Other option is just not passing the benefits ever again, and I don't believe that is something they are willing to do.
-----
As far as the senate vs. house, they are notorious for hating each other. The senate thinks it can just tell the House what to do, and the House of course resents that. So yeah there could definitely be some "victory for the Senate" motivation there.
Definition of "Nuclear Option" - Not A "Simple Majority"
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjca
Only thing needs to be pointed out is that if there is a simple majority, it is called the "nuclear option". I could be mistaken, but previous posts here suggested that the senate passing bills with a simple majority is commonplace, it isn't. It does happen but the word "nuclear" is attached to it, and it's a last resort. Just have to point that out. There is a stigma to it, but there is nothing at all to stop them from embracing that stigma if they think in the long run it will hurt the other guy.
What is a "nuclear option"
Apparently there are some mistaken concepts about what a "nuclear option actually is. There is a post elsewhere on city-data that explains the concept and provides some credible references:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
Nuclear Option
This phrase describes something that does not exist. The phrase is generally attributed to Republican Senator Trent Lott, and it refers to an effort by Republicans to change Senate rules regarding judicial nominations.
In a nutshell, it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate (60 votes) to break a filibuster. In 2004/2005, although the 55 Democrats in the Senate had agreed to over 200 Bush judicial nominations, they used the filibuster process to block 10 appointments to the bench, and that caused Republicans to seek a way to change the rules.
There are very good articles giving the background of this available here:
How the "nuclear option" would have worked A "nuclear option" is not a vote by a simple majority as stated by the poster rjca above. Here is a list of steps that would be taken, if a nuclear option were to be used to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules:
(1) The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee/bill.
(2) At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
(3) The Majority Leader (currently a Democrat) raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
(4) The Vice President (currently a Democrat) -- acting as presiding officer -- sustains the point of order.
(5) A Republican Senator appeals the decision.
(6) A Democratic Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
(7) This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
(8) With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the nominee; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster would effectively been closed with a simple majority vote instead of a vote of 60. US Senate : Filibuster & The Nuclear Option
Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." To paraphrase him, "Sometimes a simple majority is just a simple majority" -- even though the phrase "nuclear option" does have a lot more drama!
Anyone who has an example of the "nuclear option" being used, or an actual definition of the term "nuclear option" from a credible source, please do share it.
"In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic."
If the republicans filibuster, in order to stop the filibuster, they engage in the nuclear option. Everyone's heard of it, it has it's own wikipedia page, it "exists", and in the mind of the voters, it exists. If it gets passed that way, all the talking heads on the political shows will refer to it as the "nuclear option."
Here's how it was thought of during the Health Care debate:
"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told Republican Whip Eric Cantor on the floor Friday that the Senate’s rule requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster “are impeding the will of the American people.”
Overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes. Or simple majority. Which is called the nuclear option.
BTW, nuclear option might be "dramatic" but the fact is, that is the way it is thought of in Washington, and that is what it is called. The point isn't should or should it not be called a "simple majority". The point is that it is THOUGHT OF as the nuclear option. And all that matters is PERCEPTION.
Which is why I said earlier there is a "stigma" attached to it. And I also said, that there is nothing to stop them from doing that and being willing to have that stigma of what the public and talking heads may mistakenly refer to as the "nuclear option".
"In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic."
If the republicans filibuster, in order to stop the filibuster, they engage in the nuclear option. Everyone's heard of it, it has it's own wikipedia page, it "exists", and in the mind of the voters, it exists. If it gets passed that way, all the talking heads on the on the political shows will refer to it as the "nuclear option."
(1) Above I provided that wikipedia link you mention. If you read that page, you will see that wikipedia itself has flagged that entry as being unreliable and challenged by other experts in the field. Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(2) Further, even the wikipedia page -- flawed as it is -- does not provide an example of the "nuclear option" even having been used, because it never has been used. When the Senate wants to stop a filibuster, it still uses the cloture motion.
(3) "Everyone's heard of it"? Oh really? (a) How many here ever heard of the concept, and (b) Among those who have, how many understood the concept? It's pretty obscure because it is not commonly used.
(4) Sorry -- (a) the bill will not be passed by "nuclear option," so (b) your second prediction that "all the talking heads" on the political shows will refer to it that way is not gonna happen.
(3) "Everyone's heard of it"? Oh really? (a) How many here ever heard of the concept, and (b) Among those who have, how many understood the concept? It's pretty obscure because it is not commonly used.
(4) Sorry -- (a) the bill will not be passed by "nuclear option," so (b) your second prediction that "all the talking heads" on the political shows will refer to it that way is not gonna happen.
I've heard of it. Because I watch news programs. Apparently you don't watch political news commentary. When it's a simple majority, it is referred to as a nuclear option.
It has absolutely no relevance whether or not that term is "justified" or not, or if you think it doesn't even exist. The point is that is what it is called, and it has a stigma. Otherwise, there would have never been a cloture vote. They would have just voted with their "simple majority". Wait, they didn't vote with their simple majority.
If they use it (and I hope they don't--I hope they have the 60) the stories about it will include the words "nuclear option".
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.
Definition of "Nuclear Option" - Not A "Simple Majority"
