4 ms·

Joe Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option. He was able to do so because he was the 60th vote the Democrats needed. Source: http://voices.washingto

Joe Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option. He was able to do so because he was the 60th vote the Democrats needed. Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_death_of_the_public_option.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_deat...

joe_the_user 9y ago
If the democrats were serious, they could have deployed the "nuclear option" on this (suspend Senate rules). But of course there was more than one person's objection going on.
- dankohn1 9y ago
  There are far less than 50 votes from either party to suspend the 60-vote filibuster rule because it gives more power to each individual senator. By contrast, Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    Ipso facto there weren't enough votes to suspend the 60-vote in the health care case. But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule. So the rule is available for things that a strong party consensus. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule No, as your source accurately states, he was confirmed after a vote to abolish the rule for Supreme Court nominations.
      - joe_the_user 9y ago
        I think that's quibbling. If votes to abolish the rule for a case are available, it's reasonable for a single suspension vote to be possible to. Both sorts of actions decrease the power of individual senators. If anything, abolishing for a whole category reduces senator's power more - if you also read the article, the basic point is the action indeed altered the power dynamic, what those considering individual senator power are worried about.
        dankohn1 9y ago
        It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether the 60 vote threshold can survive for any kind of legislation in the future. In particular, here is an argument that American democracy is doomed because of the way partisanship ratchets towards more extreme mechanics over time: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doom... However, it remains the case that in 2009, 59 senators were ready to vote for a public option, but there was no 60th. By contrast, there were nowhere close to even 50 votes for removing the filibuster and changing to a 50 vote threshold. Please do not miss the fact that Lieberman had no rational justification for opposing the public option and that one of the keenest observers at the time accused him of being "driven more by a pathological dislike of the liberals who dogged him in 2006 than by any remotely rational policy judgment." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/liebermans_principles_or_lack.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/lieberma...
        joe_the_user 9y ago
        Sure, 59 People were ready to vote but not so ready they'd take the action to remove the limit. Those are the facts. You are laying emphasis on the one person who wouldn't vote and I'm laying emphasis on the 51+ wouldn't take take stronger action. I think it's reasonable to give my emphasis given the way the Democratic Party has behaved over time.
        dankohn1 9y ago

joe_the_user 9y ago

If the democrats were serious, they could have deployed the "nuclear option" on this (suspend Senate rules). But of course there was more than one person's objection going on.

dankohn1 9y ago
There are far less than 50 votes from either party to suspend the 60-vote filibuster rule because it gives more power to each individual senator. By contrast, Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Ipso facto there weren't enough votes to suspend the 60-vote in the health care case. But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule. So the rule is available for things that a strong party consensus. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule No, as your source accurately states, he was confirmed after a vote to abolish the rule for Supreme Court nominations.
    - joe_the_user 9y ago
      I think that's quibbling. If votes to abolish the rule for a case are available, it's reasonable for a single suspension vote to be possible to. Both sorts of actions decrease the power of individual senators. If anything, abolishing for a whole category reduces senator's power more - if you also read the article, the basic point is the action indeed altered the power dynamic, what those considering individual senator power are worried about.
      - dankohn1 9y ago
        It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether the 60 vote threshold can survive for any kind of legislation in the future. In particular, here is an argument that American democracy is doomed because of the way partisanship ratchets towards more extreme mechanics over time: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doom... However, it remains the case that in 2009, 59 senators were ready to vote for a public option, but there was no 60th. By contrast, there were nowhere close to even 50 votes for removing the filibuster and changing to a 50 vote threshold. Please do not miss the fact that Lieberman had no rational justification for opposing the public option and that one of the keenest observers at the time accused him of being "driven more by a pathological dislike of the liberals who dogged him in 2006 than by any remotely rational policy judgment." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/liebermans_principles_or_lack.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/lieberma...
        joe_the_user 9y ago
        Sure, 59 People were ready to vote but not so ready they'd take the action to remove the limit. Those are the facts. You are laying emphasis on the one person who wouldn't vote and I'm laying emphasis on the 51+ wouldn't take take stronger action. I think it's reasonable to give my emphasis given the way the Democratic Party has behaved over time.
        dankohn1 9y ago