Exactly how many votes does the Senate need to pass legislation?

[Truth2Tell]

From the WaPo article today on the Democrats budget cave-in:

The Senate is to vote today on the revised energy bill, and senators from both parties said proponents are close to reaching the 60-vote threshold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121201791.html

The 60 vote threshold. ?? Now every bill the Democrats want to pass is automatically assumed to require a 60 vote threshold?

Too bad a "60 vote threshold" wasn't required to pass bills in the Senate before 2006.

That sure woulda come in handy.

[Nite Owl]

1. We used that too but

often it failed when the dems were the minority because we had fewer dems than they now have repukes and we had a group of dem Senators who pretty consistently defected.

[Truth2Tell]

3. Takes 10 consistent defectors

to consistently kill a filibuster. Sounds like not much Party discipline?

Are you sure we really tried?

[Nite Owl]

14. In that Senate we only had

45 (I think that's what it was). So Lieberman, Pryor, Nelson, Nelson, Landrieu and one or two others was all that was needed to defect. The GOP sticks together if they are told to the dems don't. Did Reid really try though? I don't think so really, our 'leaders' don't know how to lead.

[floridablue]

2. I am confused

I thought it was 51 to pass a bill. 60 for cloture to end debate and prevent a fillabuster, and 67 to override a veto.??????

[Deep13]

4. The debate needs to end before they can take a vote for passage.

Therein lies the problem. Frankly I think the whole concept of a fillibuster is unconstitutional.

[MADem]

5. That's what the article is talking about--a filibuster.

In context, it makes sense. This paragraph appears above that one:

The threat virtually ensured that the Senate will not muster the 60 votes needed to break a threatened Republican filibuster. It moved Congress further toward shattering a Democratic pledge not to pass tax cuts that are not fully offset by tax increases or spending reductions. ...

[mirrera]

6. Exactly, the Dems just don't use the word fillibuster...

Every time the Corporate Media says 60 votes what they are NOT saying is the Republicans threaten a filibuster on every single bill because they know they can. Of course as far as I understand, the democrats could remove bills instead of passing bad ones.

[Truth2Tell]

11. the democrats could remove bills instead of passing bad ones.

Ding Ding Ding!

[Warren Stupidity]

7. One party has solidarity and a spine.

And it aint ours.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Well, not only that....

...but you've got dubya waving his veto pen around like some kind of drunken Blackwater mercenary... And then there's Lieberman. And Zell. It ain't easy. Not that I think Reid has done a particularly good job...

[depakid]

9. Cowardice and complicity

seem to be what the party's come to symbolize.

Sad but true.

[ThomWV]

10. First you need a quarum and then you need 60% of those present I believe.

Its not 60 votes, its 60% of the votes cast I think. Someone will know for sure and its not important enough to me to look up.

[Soon2bRenditioned]

12. This drives me crazy!!! How can so little change when you win back control.

I don't know why Democrats are not working on the 30 second sound bite that includes the fact that repugs are filibustering every bill they bring to the floor. Another catch 22 - a move we did not use enough when we were in the minority to block some shameful bills and nominations - a move that we should not stoop to use in the future (at least not every bill).

The only other way to get information out would be to tatoo it on Britney Spears (3 letter word for Donkey) and send her out clubbing.

[mirrera]

13. That is funny! n/t