When you wish upon a filibuster
Filed under "nice dream, but ain't gonna happen": Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl-8) is trying to get Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to change the rules of the Senate so that invoking cloture only needs 55 votes, not 60. One of the main reasons it's not going to happen is because 67 Senate votes are needed to change Senate rules.

Historical note: Until 1975, 2/3 of the Senate or 67 votes wee required to end a filibuster. Also, a filibuster used to be much more serious, in that it literally ground the Senate to a halt, no other business could be done in the chamber while a filibuster was occurring, thus making them much less likely to happen. All that changed with dual tracking of Senate bills, meaning a filibuster could still occur, but of just that bill, while other Senate business still went on.


3 comments submitted.
So which is better, ending the filibuster altogether, or limiting its use through the old, more draconian rule?
The filibuster is just a symptom, IMO, a tool used by either side. The real issue is the solid party line votes which appeal to politics, rather than what is good for the country. It's pretty crazy that no Republicans ('cept for one in the House) voted for health care reform.
I miss the filibusters. Because I'm too young to have ever followed one in action. I want the cots rolled out, dammit! And ancient leaders reading recipe books out loud for hours on end out of sheer spite!
Page 1 of 1 pages
 

 

Related Posts

Crist going Independent in Florida

April 29th 2010


US Senate passes financial reform

May 21st 2010


June 22nd primary election results.

June 23rd 2010


Tea Time

September 4th 2010


A little something besides health care

March 17th 2010