4 ms·

It's silly to rail against this when this situation is being caused by the filibuster being used by Republicans in the senate. I recently found out that it was

It's silly to rail against this when this situation is being caused by the filibuster being used by Republicans in the senate. I recently found out that it was in the last 50 years that the Senate implemented dual-tracking, which lets the senate just move on when there is a filibuster threat, drastically reducing the consequences of doing so for the minority party. Some details are here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_dual-tracking_destroyed_th.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_dual... I suspect the democrats would have fared better if they forced the republicans to filibuster 24/7 until public opinion turned against them for delaying work on other bills. It's important to remember that you only need 50 votes to pass the bill; 60 people only have to agree to let a vote happen. However, the democrats seem to have a much less effective political machine, so I can't imagine them making a move like this.

hga 17y ago
Strange, I've read elsewhere that the cloture process was established in 1917.
sethg 17y ago
To be more precise: if it weren’t for the filibuster, the House and Senate could have just reconciled the differences between their health-care reform bills in a conference committee, and the whole thing could have been passed the way we learned about it in Schoolhouse Rock. But the conference committee’s version of the bill could be filibustered again, and the Republicans are determined to do everything in the power of their 41-vote minority to block the bill. The House could just pass the Senate bill and then pass a separate bill (through the budget reconciliation process, which may not be filibustered) that incorporates the compromise, but House Democrats seem to be afraid that once the Senate Democrats get their bill passed, they won’t cooperate with the second bill. (“The Republicans are the opposition. The Senate is the enemy.”)
- hga 17y ago
  I haven't seen anyone explain how the prospect of Senate "betrayal" is diminished by application of the Slaughter rule, especially after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that reconciliation cannot commence until the original Senate bill is passed and signed into law by the President.

hga 17y ago

Strange, I've read elsewhere that the cloture process was established in 1917.

sethg 17y ago

To be more precise: if it weren’t for the filibuster, the House and Senate could have just reconciled the differences between their health-care reform bills in a conference committee, and the whole thing could have been passed the way we learned about it in Schoolhouse Rock. But the conference committee’s version of the bill could be filibustered again, and the Republicans are determined to do everything in the power of their 41-vote minority to block the bill. The House could just pass the Senate bill and then pass a separate bill (through the budget reconciliation process, which may not be filibustered) that incorporates the compromise, but House Democrats seem to be afraid that once the Senate Democrats get their bill passed, they won’t cooperate with the second bill. (“The Republicans are the opposition. The Senate is the enemy.”)

hga 17y ago
I haven't seen anyone explain how the prospect of Senate "betrayal" is diminished by application of the Slaughter rule, especially after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that reconciliation cannot commence until the original Senate bill is passed and signed into law by the President.