3 ms·
It is my bad. I did not read down-voted comment closely enough. I do have a problem with casting senate control as 60 votes, but your rationale makes sense now.
by A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
It is my bad. I did not read down-voted comment closely enough. I do have a problem with casting senate control as 60 votes, but your rationale makes sense now.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoWhy should Senate control not be considered 60 votes, if that is what is needed to accomplish the legislation in question?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoI think, because, in theory at least[1], simple majority in Senate is all that you should need to pass a bill. To the best of my understanding, 60 is just for being filibuster-proof. Your question is qualified enough to relate specifically to the bill listed by OP, but, again in theory, if the bill wasn't so off-putting that senators decided to filibuster, maybe it would pass. In other words, 60 is not control; 60 is safety. 50+1 is control albeit minimal. [1]https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-pr...
- lotsofpulp 4y agoI agree with your characterization. I supposed we will see more support of getting rid of filibusters via “nuclear option” as the bipartisanship gets less and less likely.