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.
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.
Thanks, that's the summary I was looking for. I remember that shift happened, and thinking "that's odd". Then I checked out of politics for a few years, and noticed the current language, which doesn't even reference filibusters.
I am now curious to see if things will shift back once there's a Republican president. The Republicans seem far better at press management than the Democrats.
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.
Well the point was that in a different political system such actions would not improve the position of your party. The idea that is does seemed odd to me and the only possible explanation I could come up with was that apparently enough people seem to dislike the Democrats so much that they would support such non constructive behaviour.
It's more that people just don't pay attention to the details and put far too much emphasis on the power of the President. President makes promises, fails to fulfill many of them, then the President and his party takes a hit. It doesn't matter that the reason they were blocked is because of action by the competing party.
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.
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.
FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), part apathetic electorate that chooses to not vote (period) because 'it doesn't matter', part uninformed electorate that votes based on a letter next to the name rather than positions (if the candidate even bothered to establish any positions / if the voter bothered to even look up the candidate's views) and a media that is so bent on presenting 'both sides' that they fail to call out the mountain of bullshit that we often hear (climate change isn't real, etc.).
I feel like this is the worst excuse, there are usually many things to vote on other than a US rep, or Senator. For example, here in Arizona the exit polls showed that people felt education was the most important issue. In turn, we elected a governor that loathes the idea of public schools / supports vouchers; and a school superintendent that loathes common core (because, state rights) and __did not__ run a campaign (other than repeating 'nobama' & 'states rights'). The needs and results couldn't be further apart.
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.
>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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.