Why Do The Democrats Need The Repugnants To Extend Unemployment Benefits

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Last time I checked all it needs for an appropriation bill to become law is simple majorities in both houses. If the Repugnants want to filibuster it let them work through Christmas and the New Year.

[rucky]

1. But that would blow their cover.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Am I Missing Something ?

~

[Skittles]

3. yes, we would need REAL DEMOCRATS to do that

[rucky]

4. They don't want to take political heat from the base...

so they do their duty and propose an extension.

But they don't want to take heat from the opposition by pushing it through, either.

This is a win/win for everybody but the unemployed.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Can't Bring A Bill To The Senate Floor WIthout 60 Votes...

Yes this rule sucks...and has been the roadblock that spelled disaster the past two years. Reid's too much a chickenshit to call the rushpublican and force them to actually filibuster so he either lets the bill die or water it down. Yep...all it needs is 51 votes for passage, but still 60 for it to be "read" or brought to the floor for a vote. This rule needs to go next term...but I'm not holding my breath.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Could You Elaborate?

Thank you.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Briefly...

I wish I had the time to find the wiki or other links...

It goes to the Senate rules. When a bill is passed in the House it has to be "read" into the record into the Senate before it can be acted on. A formality...or it used to be. Bills use to be "read in" under unanimous consent and then battled thereafter. In 2007 Reid allowed the Senate organizing rules to permit a 60 vote threshold rather than unanimous consent for a bill to be "read". This is the device the rushpublicans have used over and over. When Reid wants to bring up a bill, a rushpublican will object (Brown had the honors yesterday) and thus 60 votes will be needed to overcome his objection to allow the bill to finally be read. So technically it goes into limbo.

In many cases if Reid knows he doesn't have the 60 votes he doesn't even bother to bring up the bill...squandering a lot of the good work the House did but never became law. The other thing this rule does is makes powerbrokers of scum like Lieberman and Nelson who can end up being that deciding vote.

Hope that helps...

[BzaDem]

8. There is nothing Reid can do to force them to actually talk. All he can do is force them to have a

single Republican standing off to the side, and say "I sense the absence of a quorum" every hour or so. Meanwhile, 50 Democrats would have to stay there standing silent, or the hourly quorum call would fail and the Senate would adjourn.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Would Make For Great Theatre Especially With Tens Of Thousands Of The Unemployed Protesting Outside

~

[BzaDem]

10. It would literally be no different than what happens in the Senate every day, which is nothing. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I'm Confused And A Bit Embarrassed

I knew it took sixty votes to override a filibuster but I didn't know you need a super majority just to have a bill debated.

Is there anyway around it?

[KharmaTrain]

14. Force The Filibuster

And as noted above that would require someone on the rushpublican side to hold the floor and talk and talk but also to have a "quorum" or majority of Democrats present as well. It would totally gridlock the Senate (actually I wouldn't mind it...they haven't done shit) and many Democrats are scared they'll get pummeled in the corporate media.

The President could also force a special or emergency session to push for passage after the Senate adjourns but we've seen what kind of spine this administration has shown.

Yes...it's very frustrating.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Forgive My Obtuseness

I understand a filibuster. But what do the Dems need to get the bill to even be debated.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Now You See Why Things Are So Screwed

Not much...without any rushpublicans to cross over just to let the bill be read they're pounding sand. This is why President Obama sucks up so much to the "moderates" like Snowe, Collins and Brown in the hopes they'll let the bill just be read. Pretty pathetic.

The Democrats could pass a bill specifying that only 51 votes are needed for a bill to be read, but this would require at least 60 and my bets 67 votes to pass.

[BzaDem]

17. KharmaTrain, that is actually not quite how it works.

Letting the bill be read is not the problem. The reading is routinely waived. (If it weren't, even 99 votes couldn't waive reading -- you need absolute unanimous consent to waive reading). But reading again isn't the problem -- most of these bills wouldn't take more than an hour or two to read (which is why Republicans just let reading be waived).

The problem is that the motion to proceed to debate the bill is itself debatable. That means you need 60 votes to file cloture (after it's read or after reading is waived) just to initiate debate on the bill.

There is no way you can force Republicans to talk. They will simply ask for a quorum call over and over again, once an hour or so. When the quorum call is finished, they will ask for another one (after an intervening motion). You would just hear classical music on CSpan during this "quorum call filibuster," just like you hear classical music on CSpan every day. This information comes from the former Senate parliamentarian (one of two over the last few decades). These parliamentarians know more about Senate rules than anyone on the planet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

"The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture.""

[KharmaTrain]

20. Thank You For The Clarification...

My civics is a bit rusty. I was going to look for the specific rules that were involved here and you clear it up nicely. It also describes the frustration as the GOTB have stayed unified that has created this gridlock.

Unfortunately many here don't really understand how byzantine this system is and think that all President Obama has to do is wave a wand and everything would happen. Or that since he didn't "push hard" enough that this is what is causing things not to happen. You've summed the whole log jam...

Cheers...

:toast:

[laughingliberal]

18. He did it once before and it worked. He needs to do it, again. I'm calling tomorrow to tell him. nt

[BzaDem]

19. Good luck with that. Here is how the "filibuster" actually works.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

"The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture.""

--snip--

FYI, Dove was the previous judge of the Senate rules in the Senate itself. He probably knows the Senate rules better than anyone on the planet.

Of course, if Republicans wanted to, they could of course play along. But nothing forces them to.

[laughingliberal]

21. I know that. I also know he did it on a bill last year and as soon as the cots were rolled in...

the Republicans caved. Is there no point at which you believe anyone we elected should at least try to fight for us. Even look like they're fighting for us? Anything, anything at all in your perfect party other than Caves R Us?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Harry Snatched Victory From The Jaws Of Defeat

He's a real fighter when he wants to be.

[BzaDem]

6. Appropriations bills need 60 votes for cloture just like all other bills.

Republicans would be more than happy to station a single Republican on the floor to say "I sense the absence of a quorum" every hour or so. That's all they'd need to do. Come January, Republicans would control the House, so they would be MORE than happy to push everything off till then.

[hobbit709]

11. Because the leadership believes in appeasement.