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.
"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.
Once again:
(1) This is not Health Care Reform.
(2) The article you cite makes no reference to "nuclear option." It addresses "reconciliation" which is a completely different procedural resolution. Specifically, it states: "Of course, in the end, it’s not Pelosi’s decision to make; but House Democrats are not-so-gently nudging their counterparts in the Senate to pursue reconciliation, the rarely used procedural tool that only requires a simple majority to approve bills."
(3) Your final statement -- "Overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes. Or simple majority. Which is called the nuclear option." -- is not in the article you provide as supporting documentation. It's simply an opinion you added.
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".
So every vote that passes by a simple majority is really a "secret nuclear option"? Even if it does not follow the steps defined for a nuclear option?
(2) The article you cite makes no reference to "nuclear option." It addresses "reconciliation" which is a completely different procedural resolution. Specifically, it states: "Of course, in the end, it’s not Pelosi’s decision to make; but House Democrats are not-so-gently nudging their counterparts in the Senate to pursue reconciliation, the rarely used procedural tool that only requires a simple majority to approve bills."
(3) Your final statement -- "Overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes. Or simple majority. Which is called the nuclear option." -- is not in the article you provide as supporting documentation. It's simply an opinion you added.
There is a difference between reconciliation, and nuclear option. But they are both simple majority votes. They are often considered the same thing, but I believe reconciliation is only regarding the budget.
The point of the article was that simple majority has a stigma.
So every vote that passes by a simple majority is really a "secret nuclear option"? Even if it does not follow the steps defined for a nuclear option?
Why didn't the Senate vote for cloture Bill last week? Didn't they already have a majority? They had a simple majority, right? Why was cloture even necessary.
There is a difference between reconciliation, and nuclear option. But they are both simple majority votes. They are often considered the same thing, but I believe reconciliation is only regarding the budget.
The point of the article was that simple majority has a stigma.
Look, anyone who reads the article will see that is just not what it says.
The point of the entire article -- that you supplied in support of all simple majority votes being "nuclear options" -- is about using reconciliation to force a resolution of the Health Care Reform legislation. It has nothing to do with, makes no reference to, and is not applicable to a "nuclear options" or to a "simple majority having a stigma."
It was about controversial ways to end a filibuster. Like going with a simple majority vote. Regarding the budget, it's called reconciation. But it's effect is the same. That's why it's often perhaps inaccurately referred to as "reconciliation/nuclear option."
Again, if all that is necessary is to have a simple majority, why didn't HR 4213 pass? They had the simple majority. But they didn't use it. Why?
If having a simple majority is such a home-run, then why aren't they using their home run?
Why didn't the Senate vote for cloture Bill last week? Didn't they already have a majority? They had a simple majority, right? Why was cloture even necessary.
Why didn't they use that simple majority?
Why don't they just pass the bill tonight?
In the Senate, there is no limit to how long a bill can be debated. A cloture motion is made to limit further debate on and further amendments to a bill when one side is usually certain that it has the 60 votes necessary to pass the bill under cloture.
Once a cloture motion is made, they need 60 votes to invoke cloture. Once the time limit set for debate under cloture expires, if they have still not reached agreement on the bill -- then a final vote is forced. Since the final vote is being forced under cloture, that final vote needs 60 votes to pass.
The recent problems in the Senate have been due to the fact that Reid has invoked cloture on too many bills where he wanted to cut off debate, but then he couldn't deliver the 60 votes necessary to pass the bills.
If cloture is never invoked, all a bill needs to be passed by the Senate is a simple majority.
That's basically how the Senate works. All the other procedural stuff has been developed over the years as ways to get around the Senate rules. Most of those detours -- like nuclear options -- never get approved so they are never used.
If cloture is never invoked, all a bill needs to be passed by the Senate is a simple majority.
Right. I don't understand why cloture was invoked when cloture requires 60 votes. Whereas a simple majority, they already have. We could assume they had 57 votes. Plenty to pass the bill.
So essentially, instead of Reid just having this bill passed with a simple majority, he keeps going for more votes than are necessary. Tonight he adds another cloture vote. Shouldn't he just have used the simple majority tonight as well? Because that is a home-run. Cloture is tricky. Unless there's a reason to not go for the simple majority.
Wouldn't the logical path to take, to GUARANTEE it would pass, be simply to pass it with a simple majority? Why don't they do that every single time? Is there some sort of fear they have of only voting a simple majority?
It seems to me the filibuster isn't very effective. If all they have to do to break a filibuster is to vote with a simple majority, seems like they would do that every time.
Again, if all that is necessary is to have a simple majority, why didn't HR 4213 pass? They had the simple majority. But they didn't use it. Why?
The Senate couldn't use the simple majority to pass HR 4213 because the Republicans continued to add amendments and continued the debate -- "filibuster."
Senate rules require that very single amendment raised for a bill must be passed, defeated, or withdrawn before a final vote can be taken on a bill. Senate Republicans had introduced more than 200 amendments in the last two weeks (and had more lined up) when Reid called for cloture to try to close down the entire process.
Reid got his 60 votes to invoke cloture, because the Republicans knew that -- when the final vote came due -- Reid couldn't get the 60 votes required for the final passage of a bill in cloture.
That is not the norm in the Senate -- that is the delaying process that Republicans have promised to use in retaliation for the way Health Care Reform was passed (without what the Republicans regarded as sufficient inclusion of their ideas/proposals).
That's why stand-alone bills are always going to be more successful in this sort of political climate -- it's nearly impossible to overly amend and excessively debate a bill that is focused on one issue or on just a handful of programs.
If all they have to do to break a filibuster is to vote with a simple majority, seems like they would do that every time.
A Senate filibuster cannot be broken with a simple majority. For a simple majority to pass a bill, the vote has to be taken before the filibuster starts.See the portion of my previous post below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl
The Senate couldn't use the simple majority to pass HR 4213 because the Republicans continued to add amendments and continued the debate -- "filibuster."
Senate rules require that very single amendment raised for a bill must be passed, defeated, or withdrawn before a final vote can be taken on a bill. Senate Republicans had introduced more than 200 amendments in the last two weeks (and had more lined up) when Reid called for cloture to try to close down the entire process.
Reid got his 60 votes to invoke cloture, because the Republicans knew that -- when the final vote came due -- Reid couldn't get the 60 votes required for the final passage of a bill in cloture.
That is not the norm in the Senate -- that is the delaying process that Republicans have promised to use in retaliation for the way Health Care Reform was passed (without what the Republicans regarded as sufficient inclusion of their ideas/proposals).
That's why stand-alone bills are always going to be more successful in this sort of political climate -- it's nearly impossible to overly amend and excessively debate a bill that is focused on one issue or on just a handful of programs.
Filibusters are rare on stand-alone bills, and cloture does not need to be invoked to close down non-existent filibusters -- so there is generally nothing to delay a vote that can pass with a simple majority.
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.
