Why do they need 60 votes in order for the bill to advance to the floor (as opposed to a simple majority)? Is this related to the filibuster, or is it a different set of rules?
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
89 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19233 readers
2750 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, it's the Fillibuster. The Senate, in theory, has no limits at all to the amount of debate on any measure. Any Senator can talk for as long as they want. But they do have to have some way to decide to stop talking and vote, and they do that by invoking cloture. They need 60 Senators to agree that the debate is over, and then they can schedule the actual vote.
The measure still needs 50 votes to pass. But it needs 60 votes to decide to hold that simple, majority vote. Which is kind of backwards.
It gets even more backwards - any Senator at any time can declare a Senate rule is being violated by a filibuster and ask a presiding officer (e.g. another senator, usually committee chairs) to fix the violation by prohibiting filibusters under those circumstances going forward. If that presiding officer disagrees, the Senator can ask for the full chamber to vote on it, and if 50+1 Senators disagree with the presiding officer the new rule regarding filibusters goes into effect.
To sum that up in a sentence, "by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule" and kill the filibuster whenever they want.
The Senate is filled with arcane rules from the 1800's that I'm convinced only five people actually understand. They get most of their work done with unanimous consent, because using the actual rules is too hard.
Republicans voting for it thus far: Collins Kennedy Moran Young Romney Tillis McConnell
(Need 3 more since Bernie voted Nay)
(72 votes cast thus far)
Update: This failed, 58-41
Men and women in Ukraine were counting on you. Nice job aholes.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
He said he still hoped they would agree to debate the border deal, but had lined up a back up plan in consultation with the White House to move the billions in money for Ukraine, Israel and humanitarian assistance for civilians impacted in conflict zones.
The top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially signaled he favored moving the legislation supporting key allies.
He said he took direction from GOP colleagues to work on a border deal, but once the House speaker called it "dead on arrival," it was time to move on.
Many of the same Senate Republicans who insisted they wouldn't back a bill providing more money for Ukraine without changes to the country's asylum system quickly reversed themselves once former President Trump, the likely 2024 presidential nominee, publicly lobbied lawmakers to kill any border deal.
House Speaker Mike Johnson sidestepped a question on whether he would allow a vote on the foreign assistance package if the Senate approved it.
The speaker suffered back-to-back embarrassments on Wednesday, when both a resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Aleyandro Mayorkas and a standalone bill providing $18 billion for Israel both failed.
The original article contains 583 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
As an American Jew, I seriously hope Israel aid is for civilians only. The army can have some fucking toilet paper.