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.
You stated flatly that he has a filibuster proof senate, that is not true in general as I stated. Ending a Filibuster has nothing to do with a majority vote to pass a bill, why are you bringing that up.
Yes his cabinet appointments could be approved by a simple majority but you are making the assumption that every republican senator will vote their approval. That premise may not work out quite that way, some democrats crossed over to the other side then they had the majority. I can see a rather rocky road for some of his appointments,
Perhaps. We will see.
Bills just take a majority.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 12-17-2016 at 06:18 PM..
The Senate can change its rules by majority vote. The 60-votes to end a filibuster was a tradition. Reid decided to end the tradition for certain votes. The R's can do the same thing.
For the D's who complain because they had a 'good' reason, I say boohoo
Once again that is true only for Federal Court Judges and Executive Branch appointments, it still takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. Not whining just stating the facts, this does not effect bills coming to the floor or SCOTUS nominees.
,
Harry Reid changed the rules back in 2013 so the federal courts could function and cabinet appointments could get through, up to that point the delays were historic.
Once again that is true only for Federal Court Judges and Executive Branch appointments, it still takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. Not whining just stating the facts, this does not effect bills coming to the floor or SCOTUS nominees.
,
Harry Reid changed the rules back in 2013 so the federal courts could function and cabinet appointments could get through, up to that point the delays were historic.
He was right too. In all honesty the 60 vote filibuster is a rule, not a law, and its a bad one. It prevents our government from functioning well. It pains me to say this being on the opposite side of it, but getting rid of it entirely would be to our benefit long term.
He was right too. In all honesty the 60 vote filibuster is a rule, not a law, and its a bad one. It prevents our government from functioning well. It pains me to say this being on the opposite side of it, but getting rid of it entirely would be to our benefit long term.
Well 30 years ago I would have agreed but present day the filibuster has been used to just obstruct. Things started to get bad under Reagan and slowly got worse, under Bush 2 it was pretty bad and under Obama it was historic.
One of the large issues why they went to the nuclear option was that federal courts were dysfunctional, there were delays for years. Some of that due to senators not recommending appointments but mostly filibustering.
Once again that is true only for Federal Court Judges and Executive Branch appointments, it still takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. Not whining just stating the facts, this does not effect bills coming to the floor or SCOTUS nominees.
,
Harry Reid changed the rules back in 2013 so the federal courts could function and cabinet appointments could get through, up to that point the delays were historic.
All I'm saying is the OP's confidence that the new R Senate can't stop a D filibuster is misplaced. The Senate can simply expand the nuclear option to bills and SC nominations.
All I'm saying is the OP's confidence that the new R Senate can't stop a D filibuster is misplaced. The Senate can simply expand the nuclear option to bills and SC nominations.
Yes they could but like Mitch McConnell stated, they shouldn't legislate as if they will always be in power.
Yes they could but like Mitch McConnell stated, they shouldn't legislate as if they will always be in power.
The Dems changed the rules because they thought the Republicans would never win the majority again. Republicans did win the majority only three years later. Such arrogance by Reid and the Democrats!
I hope compromise will be the goal for both parties. The electorate doesn't like or respect political parties who use bully tactics based on the elections for the last several years. We want compromise.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 12-17-2016 at 08:29 PM..
The Republicans need 51 Senate votes to pass measures with a simple majority and for confirmations when reconciliation is used. The Vice-President gets to vote, only when there's a tie. That means if two republican senators are in opposition and no democrats can be recruited, nothing passes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
yes this is true as long as everything goes to the senate floor for an up or down vote. however there are procedures in the senate that require 60 votes to bring a measure to the floor. cloture requires 60 votes, breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes, or those that called the filibuster decide to end it.
and by the way. if two republicans oppose something, that means there is in fact a tie since the republicans hold a 52/48 advantage, and that means that pence casts the deciding vote, or as al gore once said, every time i vote as vice president we win.
Two of those 48 votes you list for the Democrats are from independent senators. And the two theoretical Republicans that might oppose a measure, wouldn't necessarily cast any vote at all nor would all the Democrats necessarily vote. There's many ways that a measure would not have a majority to pass, but still not be a tie.
Deleted - subsequent posts rendered this post irrelevant.
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.