"He's just a bill. A lonely old bill."
Let's keep it relatively simple. When a bill is introduced, several things can happen. One, the Senators can sign a Unanimous Consent Agreement, in which all the Senators agree to set a timeline on debate. This is the most common. Yet, with controversial bills, not all Senators want a timeline, they would rather drag it out, which helps defeat it. This is where a filibuster comes in. A filibuster is an indefinite debate on bills. They can just talk, and talk, and talk, and talk... the bill loses it's momentum and eventually dies.
So why were the Democrats wanting the magic number 60?
The answer lies in another foreign word, cloture. Cloture is a vote to end the yammering. Since 1975, the number needed to obtain cloture is 60. And if one party has 60 or more seats, they are considered a Super Majority, (cue heroic theme song) because in essence they can conduct business and pass bills with the minority's hands tied. Currently, there are 58 Democratic seats in the Senate, one still being contested (Minnesota).
Long story short: I am relieved we have one more in number for the Republicans. The Democrats don't have a shoe-in every time a bill is presented. Of course, we might have a few 'maverick' Democrats or 'maverick' Republicans (I think the word has worn out it's welcome!) who won't vote party line. What will be interesting is to see what Republican's do being the under-dogs. Will they become the 'me-too' party? Or will they stick to core Republican principles: small government, tax relief, free market, etc? As I have said before, we will see!
4 comments:
I too am relieved. This was one of my biggest worries with Obama becoming president. There is only so much a President can do, but when he has majority and furthermore a fillabuster, it really shifts the power strongly to one party--in this instance, the deomcratic party.
I just want to point out that in 2004 the Reps. tried to do away with the filibuster and were furious that the dems used the filibuster, as that was the only way the dems. could stop the reps. from having the entire "shift of power." It's a little different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
Probably for some, but not for me. There are OBVIOUS double standards on both sides. That wasn't right in 2004 nor would it be right in 2008 or 12 or 16. That is why I just try to stick to policy issues and which party, IN GENERAL, stands closer to my personal morals and values.
Any sort of balance or check on powers is essential in my book. I would have been ABSOLUTELY against it in 2004, even if it was the Reps. Politicians are politicians.
Post a Comment