User B.R. writes in:
In your discussion of the Bayh coalition today, you used the usual 60 vote marker as the line to break filibusters.
But why is that all that folks mention? I ask because everyone (media and blogs alike) are treating the filibuster as a far more commonplace occurrence than it should be. Part of the reason for this is that the GOP has learned to use the procedural filibuster (as allowed for them by Senate Rule 22 from 1975) for everything, and Reid gives in and calls for cloture.
Reid has the power as majority leader to require actual filibusters - you know, reading the phone book for 19 hours on the senate floor. It'd also make it clear to the media and the public who stopped a piece of legislation - meaning that the story line changes from "Reid unable to find 60 votes" to "McConnell reads phone book for 19 hours to stop vote."
Why does nobody talk about that option? Why doesn't Reid exercise that option? Everyone is so stuck on "60 votes" as if it means something, but 51 votes is all that matters to pass legislation.
B.R. raises several interesting points, but they ultimately point back to one thing: Harry Reid has been exceptionally ineffective as the Democrats' majority leader.
The number of cloture votes skyrocketed in the 110th Congress following the Democratic takeover of the Senate and Reid's assumption of the majority leader position. The Senate voted on 112 cloture motions in the 110th, exactly double the number (56) of cloture votes in the 109th Congress, and two-and-a-half times as many as the average number of cloture votes (44) over the previous nine Congresses. Of these cloture motions, 51 were rejected (meaning that opponents of a bill succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote) and 61 were passed.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/is-60-votes-overrated.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
