5 ms·

Does anyone have a history of the "60 votes needed" to pass a bill in the Senate? I could have sworn that within my lifetime, the press talked about "50 votes

by graeme 12y ago

Does anyone have a history of the "60 votes needed" to pass a bill in the Senate? I could have sworn that within my lifetime, the press talked about "50 votes needed" to pass a bill. Then at some point in the Bush years, threat of filibuster was regularly invoked, making 60 votes the requirement in practice. Now no one even mentions a filibuster. As a non-American, it's rather strange.

mikeyouse 12y ago
The threat of filibuster is implicit in the "60 votes needed" language. At 60 votes, the majority side can invoke 'cloture' which moves the bill to an actual vote, after which you only need 50 votes to pass. Prior to 60 votes, the minority side can pretty much endlessly delay the actual vote on the bill through filibusters and other parliamentary tactics. A good history of how we got to where we are: http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filib... And the more encyclopedic answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States
Hario 12y ago
This might be what you're looking for: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-histor... Very briefly: In the mid years of Bush, the D Senate filibustered more than usual in regards to nominations of non-Supreme Court judges. In 2006, when Democrats took the Senate, the Republicans started filibustering up a storm. But no one in the press noticed because Bush would have veto'd anyway, so the balance of power didn't shift. As soon as Obama was elected, the Republican Senate had an internal meeting where they agreed to filibuster everything all the time -- legislation, judges, executive appointments, everything. Even legislation they supported, just to throw a wrench into the plans. It was a momentous change. The press failed to point it out or make an issue out of it. And here we are.
- deciplex 12y ago
  I wonder what the odds are that the Republicans will end the filibuster once they take back the Senate. Seems like the smart play would be to only do that if you have a veto-proof majority or a Republican President, but who knows.
  - meepmorp 12y ago
    Not immediately. It's more useful as a "capitulate or else" weapon, at least for now. And immediately changing it upon winning has some petty, triumphalist optics to it. McConnell is a very shrewd politician.
  - ericcumbee 12y ago
    Actually Harry Reid already ended the filibuster on Judicial Nominees http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
- techrat 12y ago
  Politics of spite, not logic and reason.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I'd call it politics of self-interest rather than politics of national interest. These actions were perfectly logical and reasonable, if your goal is to improve the position of your party potentially at the expense of the nation.
    - orbifold 12y ago
      In a multiparty system such behaviour would be a sure fire way to a massive loss in the next election.
      - 12y ago
deciplex 12y ago
Your understanding is correct. The workings of the US government would make the Byzantines scratch their heads. Hopefully though, it doesn't take one-thousand years for this shit-show to get rubbed out and replaced with something better.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  To paraphrase your comments elsewhere in this thread, you're awfully pessimistic. Do you really imagine the USA lasting that long?
  - deciplex 12y ago
    I don't. But, I drew a comparison between the Byzantine Empire, which IIRC correctly lasted about 1000 years after the fall of the West, so I thought I'd follow it through to the end.
tptacek 12y ago
James Fallows, the last of the old guard at The Atlantic, has this as part of his beat: he calls it "false equivalence watch". A lot of the coverage of this fiasco succumbs to it, for instance blaming the failure of the bill to clear the Senate on lack of grassroots support, as if that was going to get it votes from senators elected by rural conservatives. On the other hand: over the next couple years, the same force is going to work in the other direction as the Democrats assume the minority. Were it not for the filibuster, Social Security might be a block grant to NY financial firms by now.
- graeme 12y ago
  >On the other hand: over the next couple years, the same force is going to work in the other direction as the Democrats assume the minority. Maybe. The republicans seem far better at parliamentary procedure and press management. Once there's a Republican president, I can imagine there will be loud outcries against "Democratic obstructionism" if the democrats attempt to block votes with a filibuster. As Hario's comment above pointed out, the reverse happened in 2006 then 2008. I could see them successfully switching the narrative back. These past several years I've been very surprised that the Democrats simply acquiesced to 60, and didn't even try to make Republicans actually filibuster bills by talking. As this article points out, actual filibustering is a gruelling process. The speaker can't leave the podium: http://mentalfloss.com/article/49360/5-famous-filibusters http://mentalfloss.com/article/49360/5-famous-filibusters I looked up any more recent filibusters. I came across Rand Paul's filibuster from 2013. He lasted 13 hours, and failed to block the appointment of John Brennan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-filibuster-was-just-the-beginning/2013/03/08/6352d8a8-881b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-fili... Anyone have insight on the Democrat's (lack of) response to the threat of filibustering?
- DennisP 12y ago
  It seems odd to me that rural conservatives support surveillance, given that for many of them, the justification for strong gun rights is to preserve the ability to rebel against the government.
gergles 12y ago
I have never understood how "we filibuster!" is acceptable. If you want to stop a bill, get somebody out there in sneakers reading out of a fucking phone book, but going "tee-hee, we say no, go fetch a supermajority" is asinine. I don't get why the body has chosen rules that make filibusters require no effort.

by graeme 12y ago

mikeyouse 12y ago

The threat of filibuster is implicit in the "60 votes needed" language. At 60 votes, the majority side can invoke 'cloture' which moves the bill to an actual vote, after which you only need 50 votes to pass. Prior to 60 votes, the minority side can pretty much endlessly delay the actual vote on the bill through filibusters and other parliamentary tactics. A good history of how we got to where we are: http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filib... And the more encyclopedic answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

Hario 12y ago

This might be what you're looking for: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-histor... Very briefly: In the mid years of Bush, the D Senate filibustered more than usual in regards to nominations of non-Supreme Court judges. In 2006, when Democrats took the Senate, the Republicans started filibustering up a storm. But no one in the press noticed because Bush would have veto'd anyway, so the balance of power didn't shift. As soon as Obama was elected, the Republican Senate had an internal meeting where they agreed to filibuster everything all the time -- legislation, judges, executive appointments, everything. Even legislation they supported, just to throw a wrench into the plans. It was a momentous change. The press failed to point it out or make an issue out of it. And here we are.

deciplex 12y ago
I wonder what the odds are that the Republicans will end the filibuster once they take back the Senate. Seems like the smart play would be to only do that if you have a veto-proof majority or a Republican President, but who knows.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  Not immediately. It's more useful as a "capitulate or else" weapon, at least for now. And immediately changing it upon winning has some petty, triumphalist optics to it. McConnell is a very shrewd politician.
- ericcumbee 12y ago
  Actually Harry Reid already ended the filibuster on Judicial Nominees http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
techrat 12y ago
Politics of spite, not logic and reason.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I'd call it politics of self-interest rather than politics of national interest. These actions were perfectly logical and reasonable, if your goal is to improve the position of your party potentially at the expense of the nation.
  - orbifold 12y ago
    In a multiparty system such behaviour would be a sure fire way to a massive loss in the next election.
    - 12y ago

deciplex 12y ago

Your understanding is correct. The workings of the US government would make the Byzantines scratch their heads. Hopefully though, it doesn't take one-thousand years for this shit-show to get rubbed out and replaced with something better.

jessaustin 12y ago
To paraphrase your comments elsewhere in this thread, you're awfully pessimistic. Do you really imagine the USA lasting that long?
- deciplex 12y ago
  I don't. But, I drew a comparison between the Byzantine Empire, which IIRC correctly lasted about 1000 years after the fall of the West, so I thought I'd follow it through to the end.

tptacek 12y ago

James Fallows, the last of the old guard at The Atlantic, has this as part of his beat: he calls it "false equivalence watch". A lot of the coverage of this fiasco succumbs to it, for instance blaming the failure of the bill to clear the Senate on lack of grassroots support, as if that was going to get it votes from senators elected by rural conservatives. On the other hand: over the next couple years, the same force is going to work in the other direction as the Democrats assume the minority. Were it not for the filibuster, Social Security might be a block grant to NY financial firms by now.

graeme 12y ago
>On the other hand: over the next couple years, the same force is going to work in the other direction as the Democrats assume the minority. Maybe. The republicans seem far better at parliamentary procedure and press management. Once there's a Republican president, I can imagine there will be loud outcries against "Democratic obstructionism" if the democrats attempt to block votes with a filibuster. As Hario's comment above pointed out, the reverse happened in 2006 then 2008. I could see them successfully switching the narrative back. These past several years I've been very surprised that the Democrats simply acquiesced to 60, and didn't even try to make Republicans actually filibuster bills by talking. As this article points out, actual filibustering is a gruelling process. The speaker can't leave the podium: http://mentalfloss.com/article/49360/5-famous-filibusters http://mentalfloss.com/article/49360/5-famous-filibusters I looked up any more recent filibusters. I came across Rand Paul's filibuster from 2013. He lasted 13 hours, and failed to block the appointment of John Brennan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-filibuster-was-just-the-beginning/2013/03/08/6352d8a8-881b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-fili... Anyone have insight on the Democrat's (lack of) response to the threat of filibustering?
DennisP 12y ago
It seems odd to me that rural conservatives support surveillance, given that for many of them, the justification for strong gun rights is to preserve the ability to rebel against the government.

gergles 12y ago

I have never understood how "we filibuster!" is acceptable. If you want to stop a bill, get somebody out there in sneakers reading out of a fucking phone book, but going "tee-hee, we say no, go fetch a supermajority" is asinine. I don't get why the body has chosen rules that make filibusters require no effort.