I don’t think so. I think it takes 60 to end debate and actually bring a bill to a vote. 50 plus the Vice President is what they are aiming for to pass legislation. First they need to force the filibustering parties to actually filibuster.
Manchin Will Not Eliminate The Filibuster, Major Setback For Liberal Democrats
- Thread starter Wally
- Start date
Not today. But everything is a negotiation. Reading exactly what Manchin said, enforcing the actual filibuster rules is exactly the kind of thing a career politician can work with.
Nope, sorry. A normal vote is majority rule which in today's Senate probably means a 50/50 tie with Kamala Harris breaking the tie. But by invoking the filibuster a minimum 60 vote majority is required. It's why Dems want to end the filibuster because it's standing in the way of their agenda. There's some kind of procedure that may allow them to get around it to pass the latest spending bill. I believe it's up to the guy that oversees Senate rules as to whether they can use it.
That’s what I said. It doesn’t take 60 to pass the it takes 60 to end the filibuster. But it’s gotten easy so that the filibustering party doesn’t actually have to do anything except “invoke” the filibuster. If they were forced to actually abide by the rules of the filibuster and have long, non-ending speeches making up the debate, you’d see far fewer.
No, it takes 60 votes to pass the bill, not end the filibuster. The days of long speeches have passed. What happens is when the filibuster is invoked it's determined if there's 60 votes for the bill. If not they don't go through the motions. Voting doesn't happen. That in effect stops the filibuster, and the bill.
You can't filibuster SCOTUS picks. Simple majority required.
You are right, and I was wrong. It takes 60 votes to end the filibuster, not pass the bill. And if you can't get the 60 votes needed then the bill won't be voted on. As for long speeches in 1986 they limited each Senator to one hour speeches. So it's a tag team effort, not a Mr.Smith Goes to Washington one man marathon.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Only because McConnell changed the filibuster rule to get Gorsuch seated for SCOTUS picks. Guess it's OK to change the rules for your side but not the other?
Actually Harry Reid changed the rule and McConnell told him he would regret that.
So rules can be changed.
That's what the whole Manchin thing is about. He's not going along. Political suicide in West Virginia if he does.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
You're wrong. Harry changed the rules for some lower judicial picks in 2013 but not for SCOTUS. Turtle then changed the rules again when he couldn't get Gorsuch in with 60 votes.
We are learning things today. Reid lowered the requirement for ALL Federal judicial picks and administration staff from 60 to 51 votes. Was known as the "nuclear option." But it didn't affect SCOTUS nominees. In 2017 Dems filibustered the Gorsuch nomination and McConnell responded with his own nuclear option, removing the filibuster from SCOTUS votes. So there you have it.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
So both parties just change the rules when it suits their side. Why not just get rid of the filibuster all together? It's gutted anyways.
For Republicans that's the only thing standing in the way of the Dems agenda. As it was for the Dems during the Trump administration.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
That and the fact that even Republicans didn’t vote for the Trump agenda of eliminating health insurance from millions of Americans. That’s what has the right scared, Democrats could pass their agenda and since their programs are popular Republicans won’t be able to dismantle them when they take over.
Since when is one party rule and power good for anything??
Come to California, I'll show ya. lmao
Come to California, I'll show ya. lmao
Right now which programs put forth by the current administration are popular?
Similar threads
