Senate Special Election in MA

[Plow]

Then why did they vote in a majority of us and a liberal president a year ago?

I'm just curious if conservatives have ever considered the thought of not trying to nuke legislation by using scare tactics like "death panels, communism, socialism," et al

what I really wonder is if they've considered the possibility that a majority do, in fact, want said policies

[Kuya]

If this election was so important for legislation, did the Dems and the White House actually put the effort in keepings this seat under the democrats? I have been hearing some people blame it solely on her, but i've also seen people mention that the WH and Dems hardly put all the necessary resources into this.

[Olo401]

If this election was so important for legislation, did the Dems and the White House actually put the effort in keepings this seat under the democrats? I have been hearing some people blame it solely on her, but i've also seen people mention that the WH and Dems hardly put all the necessary resources into this.

From what I'm hearing the national party offered all of its resources right after the primary, but Coakley was too busy taking a vacation. Not joking.

[Bingbong]

From what I'm hearing the national party offered all of its resources right after the primary, but Coakley was too busy taking a vacation. Not joking.

Yup, she took off for a week with about 3 weeks to go in the campaign, and then went to Washington to hit up the Lobbyists for cake, where her "guard" hip checked a blogger into a metal grating while she watched and then said she didn't see it.

That's basically where the fail peaked.

[BerenTebogo]

So long as Brown doesn't affect my ability to watch 2 men fuck each other while aborting babies it should be fine anyways.

[Kuya]

I am happy with it also as long as i am able to get gay with other men and abort all my babies.

[Lordender]

loldemocrats now they will look like crackheads trying to get a fix by rushing the healthcare bill before their loss in MA bites them in the ass.

[Vajra]

Scott Brown: Election Not a Refferandum on Obama.

This guy sounds soft man. He also wants to play game of basketball with Obama.

[Acturus]

Stopped being relatively civil by page 3.

Neocon circlejerk started on page 5.

Do I need to read the last two pages?

[Cantih]

I seriously don't know how I want this to play out.

Well, there is the idea that if the Dems call the bluff on GOP filibusters, and the GOP does it, it's basically giving the Republicans the rope to hang themselves.
I'm willing to bet if there is a filibuster, especially if it lasts long, it will NOT help the GOP in this years elections.

[Ragnus]

They have a Republican Governor

We have a Democrat for a governor. Mitt Romney left a while ago. Nice try.

All talk about him running for PoTUS needs to stop now. I'm happy he won against that arrogant moron Coakley but I don't see him getting re-elected when faced with real competition in the next election. I'm just glad that at least most of MA isn't braindead Democratic.

Even compared to the stuff the previous administration pulled, I don't even want to know the massive backlash that will happen if the current health care bill is rushed through the system before he is seated.

[willriker]

if my understanding is correct, a fillibuster is basicaly a rerpesentitives right to ask for unlimited debate on the subject to gain a better understanding about it. To over ride this you need a whopping 60 votes against the fillibuster.

My question is that if the GOP decides to fillibuster this, doesnt it dead lock every single peice of legislature until the unlimited debate ends? If so what is the trigger that is used to end a fillibuster once it begins? I mean there is a point where they explain everything about the bill, no?

[Olo401]

So long as Brown doesn't affect my ability to watch 2 men fuck each other while aborting babies it should be fine anyways.

I am happy with it also as long as i am able to get gay with other men and abort all my babies.

Why don't you just fap to Scott Brown's centerfold from Cosmo?

http://airamerica.com/imagecache/upl...ed_display.jpg

[BerenTebogo]

Why don't you just fap to Scott Brown's centerfold from Cosmo?

http://airamerica.com/imagecache/upl...ed_display.jpg

Fine! Maybe I will!

[Acturus]

if my understanding is correct, a fillibuster is basicaly a rerpesentitives right to ask for unlimited debate on the subject to gain a better understanding about it. To over ride this you need a whopping 60 votes against the fillibuster.

My question is that if the GOP decides to fillibuster this, doesnt it dead lock every single peice of legislature until the unlimited debate ends? If so what is the trigger that is used to end a fillibuster once it begins? I mean there is a point where they explain everything about the bill, no?

Not quite:

In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority[10]:

The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.
The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6] member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.
Nevertheless, the current Senate rules state that 67 votes are required for future rule changes.[11] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called Nuclear option, also called the "constitutional option" for political reasons and because of its roots in constitutional majoritarianism.

[edit] Procedural filibuster
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

[Olo401]

My question is that if the GOP decides to fillibuster this, doesnt it dead lock every single peice of legislature until the unlimited debate ends? If so what is the trigger that is used to end a fillibuster once it begins? I mean there is a point where they explain everything about the bill, no?

There's two ways out of a filibuster - a successful cloture vote (requiring a 3/5 majority, or 60 votes), or withdrawl of the item (bill, amendment, resolution) currently active in floor debate. There is a way around standard cloture - using the Senate's rules for budget reconciliation. In that case, cloture is a 50%+1 majority. There is precedent for this, especially from 2001-2005.

To address you other point about explaining a bill.. no there's no one big moment a bill gets before its passage where everyone gets to read it, because they're already expected to know it. Large reform measures take many years to take shape. The pending health care reform bill is something that Kennedy had been working on literally for two decades or more - he and the other senators see it take shape in committee, in meetings, office staff memos, etc.. So unless someone's only been around a short while, they really have no excuse to not already know what the contents of a bill are. Remember that next time someone stands up to filibuster and claims, to paraphrase Sen. Tom Coburn, that they 'want to know just exactly what they are voting for'.

[Talint]

if my understanding is correct, a fillibuster is basicaly a rerpesentitives right to ask for unlimited debate on the subject to gain a better understanding about it. To over ride this you need a whopping 60 votes against the fillibuster.

My question is that if the GOP decides to fillibuster this, doesnt it dead lock every single peice of legislature until the unlimited debate ends? If so what is the trigger that is used to end a fillibuster once it begins? I mean there is a point where they explain everything about the bill, no?

It takes sixty votes to open debate on a bill, and then sixty votes to close debate. All bills must be debated on the senate floor before coming to a vote.

This particular filibuster that gets talked about was about how all forty republicans (now forty-one) vote to either not open debate, or to not close debate.

The actual bill passage still requires only 51.

Edit: Yeah. What everyone else said.

[Cantih]

My question is that if the GOP decides to fillibuster this, doesnt it dead lock every single peice of legislature until the unlimited debate ends?
If so what is the trigger that is used to end a fillibuster once it begins? I mean there is a point where they explain everything about the bill, no?

Yes and no.

There are only two (well, three, but the third has serious fallout) ways of ending a filibuster. Cloture (the 60 votes), and the filibustering group to simply stop.
The only reason the group would stop, would be:
1. They get concessions.
2. The opposite group pulls the legislation, other business will proceed, but if the opposed legislation comes back, the filibuster will start again.
3. The filibustering group drops from exhaustion. Either literally if the senate majority leader decides to deny procedural filibuster, or figuratively from internal stresses.

[Olo401]

Interesting stuff here.. I realize it's a link to zomgleftwingdailykos but it's worth the read to see how things can get fucked up when the gears inside a machine get clogged.

[willriker]

Thank you for those replies, it really helped clarify this for me. I guess i was operating under the wrong impression of what a filibuster actualy is. The long and short of it, is that it is a way for the minority to bitch about a bill until it cannot be passed. It seems really lame that it takes less votes to lock down a bill than it does to pass a bill, but i guess it has its uses >.>

One thing that i have noticed is that the republicans let the democrats talk, then the republicans sit back and come up with clever critic's on what the democrats said. Its obvious that this works for them. So, whats stopping the democrats from doing the same?

The democrats can call thier bluff on the filibuster. If the republicans back down, they win. If the republicans don't back down, they follow through with thier threat to filibuster, then the democrats can slam the republicans with the very same tactic they are suffering from. The democrats can start talking about how the republicans cannot get anything done. The democrats can talk about how ridiculous the republican complaints are. The democrats can dredge up stories, cherry picked, from the american populous to rebut every arguement the republicans make.

To sumarize, make the filibuster an opportunity to drive a death nail into the heart of the party rather than veiwing it as a real threat. Make the people hate the republican party again.

If there is one thing that i have learned, in my time, its that the person who frames the debate/dispute will win the debate/dispute. As of yet, the democrats have been letting the republicans frame the debate. I say let the republicans stand up to complain, and use it as an opportunity to reframe the debate to the democrats liking. Its what the republicans have been doing to the democrats, i say its high time they get it right back.