The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   It's all up to Franken now! (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20169)

Apollo 04-30-2009 02:16 PM

Question: Does "the magic number" of 60 really mean anything? I never thought that filibusters were common occurrences anymore. Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? It seems like the Dems are already controlling most of the legislation as it is...

Redux 04-30-2009 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo (Post 561669)
Question: Does "the magic number" of 60 really mean anything? I never thought that filibusters were common occurrences anymore. Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? It seems like the Dems are already controlling most of the legislation as it is...

The Republicans set a record number cloture votes last session of Congress ...more than doubling any previous Congress.
Quote:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/...filiate.91.jpg
I think the final count last session was over 110.
And this was with a Republican in the White House with veto power.

At one time, not too long ago, filibusters were used primarily to block controversial judicial appointments and/or sweeping legislative initiatives that seriously divided the country. For the Republicans now in the minority, it has become routine to force a vote to cut-off debate.

It is not illegal or unethical....just hypocritical on the part of Republicans, particularly when it thwarts the will of a more than narrow will of the American people.

Yes it matters.

Sheldonrs 04-30-2009 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo (Post 561669)
Question: Does "the magic number" of 60 really mean anything? I never thought that filibusters were common occurrences anymore. Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? It seems like the Dems are already controlling most of the legislation as it is...

It's important in that, if the democrats want to pass a bill in the senate, they can do it no matter if every republican is against it. And the repubs can't filibuster (which happens a lot) to block the vote.

Of course, all this is assuming that the Dems all vote together too.

Apollo 04-30-2009 06:17 PM

I see, I see. Yeah I always knew that the magic number blocked filibusters, so obviously it would be significant. My real question was whether anybody uses filibusters anymore, which Redux pretty much answered for me.

I had no idea that there that many cloture votes!

tw 04-30-2009 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo (Post 561727)
I see, I see. Yeah I always knew that the magic number blocked filibusters, so obviously it would be significant. My real question was whether anybody uses filibusters anymore, which Redux pretty much answered for me.

Taking the same problem from another level. Republican party has a serious internal problem. It has no leader. It has too many members entrenched in political agendas. Infighting has become so heated as to drive many (especially moderate Republicans) out and to alienate the troops. As a result, the party is not able to compromise with Democrats. That is the worst situations for anyone who is more interested in America. The deadlock and infighting makes it impossible for moderate Democrats, Republicans, and those of independent stature to solve any problems. Any Republican who even looks like he has compromised with a Democrat is beaten and destroyed by what is now a raging mob.

Two ways around this. First Republicans find someone with leadership abilities. Or Democrats get sufficient votes to quash any filibuster. The latter situation would force Republicans to settle their differences, find a leader, and start working for America. Which means cooperating with Democrats again.

A politican must eventually decide whether he works for America or for party extremists. This exclusive OR condition applies to both parties.

sugarpop 05-01-2009 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf (Post 561179)
Does anybody else find this statement scary?

At least he's now properly labelled.

wolf, what he meant by that statement is, the Republican Party has been backing hard right wing candidates in rebublican primaries against moderate incumbants. The moderate incumbant ends up losing to the hard right candidate, but then the republicans lose in the general election because the candidates are too extreme and people vote for the democrat. It makes no sense. They are giving up seats in order to "purify the party." They were backing another candidate against Specter in the upcoming primaries in 2010. Arlen Specter wasn't willing to just let his seat go. (Primaries never have the number of people voting as the general elections.) In the general election against an extreme candidate he will probably be able to hold on to his seat as a democrat.

Spexxvet 05-01-2009 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo (Post 561669)
... Is there any other benefit of having 60 seats? ...

The Democrats get to leave early on Fridays, and get an extra serving of ice cream at lunch.:D

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 561832)
Arlen Specter wasn't willing to just let his seat go.

Because it is about his desire to hang on to power and not losing his job. And for no other reason.

Undertoad 05-02-2009 07:30 AM

The Club for "Growth" ran an unelectable candidate against him in the primary.

The party pushed him out and said good riddance and did a little dance afterwards.

It's exactly what the Ds did to Lieberman. Nobody ever learns.

Redux 05-02-2009 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562093)
Because it is about his desire to hang on to power and not losing his job. And for no other reason.

Maybe he learned that from Richard Shelby, the Senator from Alabama who switched from D to R in the 90s for fear of losing his reelection.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 562123)
Maybe he learned that from Richard Shelby, the Senator from Alabama who switched from D to R in the 90s for fear of losing his reelection.

Maybe he just took a page from his own history instead:

Quote:

After graduating from Yale Law School, Specter opened a law practice, Specter & Katz, with Marvin Katz, who is now a Federal District Court Judge in Philadelphia. Specter became an assistant district attorney under District Attorney James Crumlish, and was a Democrat.

In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican.
It is all about him wanting to stay in the Senate and keep the power in his hands.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 562101)
The Club for "Growth" ran an unelectable candidate against him in the primary.

The party pushed him out and said good riddance and did a little dance afterwards.

It's exactly what the Ds did to Lieberman. Nobody ever learns.

It would have been more interesting if he had just become an Independent. Then he could truely say no one owned him and he owed no one. But of course he would never be bank rolled in a re-elections like the Dems can do for him.

TGRR 05-02-2009 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562190)
Maybe he just took a page from his own history instead:



It is all about him wanting to stay in the Senate and keep the power in his hands.

Okay.

And now you're down a senator. If Franken makes it, you can't even filibuster. Obama can appoint anyone he likes.

But you've established ideological purity. Congratulations.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR (Post 562209)
Okay.

And now you're down a senator. If Franken makes it, you can't even filibuster. Obama can appoint anyone he likes.

But you've established ideological purity. Congratulations.

WTF are you talking about. I'm not down shit. The Republickins are down one the Demoncrats are up one. :lol2:

TGRR 05-02-2009 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562210)
WTF are you talking about. I'm not down shit. The Republickins are down one the Demoncrats are up one. :lol2:

Of course. Because you're "independent". :lol:

Even though you spend all your time defending Bush and his policies.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.