the new health care?

When did it become the norm in the Senate to have 60 votes to pass anything? This is a political tactic much like the filibusterer. In this matter respect isn't required, only that you understand we all have to do what we must.

Democrats and Republicans alike have been using the 60vote barrier since Clinton. The Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. And I think, for revamping such a huge portion of the American Life, it is well worth using such a political tactic, and as you said, it's simply those who are against the bill doing "what they must do"

When did it become the norm in the Senate to have 60 votes to pass anything? This is a political tactic much like the filibusterer. In this matter respect isn't required, only that you understand we all have to do what we must.

You ask a fair question:

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster&action=edit&section=7)] U.S. Filibuster History


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster&action=edit&section=8)] Early use

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr) argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-Gold-11) In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-Gold-11) Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States). Senator Henry Clay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay) tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._King) threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators backed King, and Clay backed down.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-Gold-11)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster&action=edit&section=9)] 20th century and the emergence of cloture

In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture) of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-senatecontrol-12) at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-13) From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting.
In 1946, Southern Senators blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Democrat Dennis Chavez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Chavez) of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEPC)) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture) vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) legislation, the Democratic-controlled Senate[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-senatecontrol-12) in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Changes to Senate rules still require two-thirds of Senators voting. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a minority to affect legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond) (D/R-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957) for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-14) although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes which Wayne Morse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse) (I-OR) had established in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.
The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s was when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-15) The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-17), though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-18)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cloture_Voting,_U.S._Senate,_1947_to_2008.jpg )

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster&action=edit&section=10)] Current U.S. practice

Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature) in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules. The House did not adopt rules restricting debate until 1842, and the filibuster was used in that body before that time.
Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Senate))" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues.
A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda) indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, James Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond)'s own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mansfield) refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster&action=edit&section=11)] Recent U.S. Senate history

In 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), a group of Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) senators led by Senate Majority Leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Majority_Leader) Bill Frist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist) (R-TN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee)), responding to the Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney), as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-19) Senator Trent Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott), the junior Republican senator from Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi), had named the plan the "nuclear option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option)." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".
On May 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_23), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), a group of fourteen senators was dubbed the Gang of 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14), consisting of seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered that was not under "extraordinary circumstances". Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen), Janice Rogers Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown), and William H. Pryor, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pryor,_Jr.), who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. "Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term was open for interpretation by each Senator, but the Republicans and Democrats would have had to agree on what it meant if any nominee were to be blocked.
On January 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_3), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress), this agreement expired.
On July 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_17), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), Senate Democratic leadership allowed a filibuster, on debate about a variety of amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01585:), specifically the Levin-Reed amendment S.AMDT.2087 to H.R.1585 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:106:./temp/~bdAt3b::). The filibuster had been threatened by Republican leadership to prompt a cloture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture) vote.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
As of August 2009[update] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster&action=edit), the Democrats are one vote short of a filibuster-proof supermajority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority), due to the August 25 death of senator Ted Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy).[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-20)
Usually proposals for constitutional amendments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) are not filibustered. This is because a two-thirds majority is needed to pass such a proposal, which is more than the three-fifths majority needed to invoke cloture. So usually a filibuster cannot change the outcome, because if a filibuster succeeds, the amendment proposal would not have passed anyway. However, in some cases, such as for the Federal Marriage Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment) in 2006, the Senate did vote on cloture for the proposal; when the vote on cloture failed, the proposal was dropped. Some made the accusation that the opponents of the amendment did not want to face political consequences in a midterm-election year for directly voting against the amendment, so they defeated it in a procedural vote instead

Democrats and Republicans alike have been using the 60vote barrier since Clinton. The Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. And I think, for revamping such a huge portion of the American Life, it is well worth using such a political tactic, and as you said, it's simply those who are against the bill doing "what they must do"

That's clearly not true (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm). And yes, contentious issues warrant contention.

Notice who started the trend in the 92nd congress.

That's clearly not true (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm). And yes, contentious issues warrant contention.

Notice who started the trend in the 92nd congress.

from your link:
Senate Action on Cloture Motions
Congress, Years Motions Filed, Votes on Cloture, Cloture Invoked
111, 2009-2010, 43, 22, 20
110, 2007-2008, 139, 112, 61
104 1995-1996, 82, 50, 9

I said that both parties practice it and that the Democrats took it to new heights, to which you provided the link saying my statement was false. Clearly, the 110 Congress went to an extreme in this practice, and I included the 104 Congress to show that Republicans had indeed used it, but clearly not at the same pace.
What part of my statement were you trying to disprove with your link?
If it was the since Clinton portion and you were saying it goes back to 72, ok, I didn't date it far enough back. My basic point was still valid.

from your link:


I said that both parties practice it and that the Democrats took it to new heights, to which you provided the link saying my statement was false. Clearly, the 110 Congress went to an extreme in this practice, and I included the 104 Congress to show that Republicans had indeed used it, but clearly not at the same pace.
What part of my statement were you trying to disprove with your link?
If it was the since Clinton portion and you were saying it goes back to 72, ok, I didn't date it far enough back. My basic point was still valid.

Your statement is false because you stated that the Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. Relative to previous sessions when Clinton was in office, which is the point of reference in your statement, your claim isn't true. When you compare the 104rd congress with the 103th congress which saw a ~36% increase compared to the previous congress (102nd) you are still standing in the invalid circle.


If you really want to speak to the issue of taking things to new heights you would hit the jackpot with 110th congress.

Your statement is false because you stated that the Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. Relative to previous sessions when Clinton was in office, which is the point of reference in your statement, your claim isn't true. When you compare the 104rd congress with the 103th congress which saw a ~36% increase compared to the previous congress (102nd) you are still standing in the invalid circle.


If you really want to speak to the issue of taking things to new heights you would hit the jackpot with 110th congress.
which was a democratic congress with Bush. so I was right??

anyway, its a political tactic, that is valid and has been used more and more over the past 38 years.

which was a democratic congress with Bush. so I was right??

anyway, its a political tactic, that is valid and has been used more and more over the past 38 years.


You are not right. Let me break down the 110th congress for you:



Bush was in office.
The Democrats are in control.
The Democrats have full control of what gets or doesn't get to the floor for a vote. If they choose to do so they can reject any bill proposed by the other-side from getting to the floor but that's really not good politics.
Republicans use the filibusterer to stop them from passing all the bills they bring to the floor with a simple majority up-and-down vote.
Democrats call for Cloture vote to stop debate. The cloture procedure is just to see if the other side really has 41 votes and force the issue.
If cloture fails the filibusterer is successful.


So in that 110th congress the people doing filibustering are the people who don't have power, the Republicans. The correct assessment of the 110th congress would be:

With Bush in office and Democrats in charge of both houses Republican senators took filibustering to new heights to stop the Democrats' agenda.

Thanks Saden.

I was thinking of when the judicial nominees were being held up, but you are right about the 110 congress.

Thanks Saden.

I was thinking of when the judicial nominees were being held up, but you are right about the 110 congress.

You actually bring up a good point with Judicial nominees in that even with full control of the senate there are times when the majority use the filibusterer to stop the president's agenda/nominees. This is a rarity because the president is smart enough not to bring a nominee or agenda to the senate floor that doesn't already have majority support.

In 110th congress one nominee was filibustered by the Democrats but cloture was successfully with 62 votes and she now sits on a federal bench. Also there are instances where the majority party lets the minority party bring a bill to the floor but some some members of the majority party don't like the bill so they choose to filibusterer it.

In one of the ObamaCare discussions someone made the comment, "When do we start eating each other?".....apparently now

Report: Man's Finger Bitten Off During Fight at Health Care Rally - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/report-mans-finger-bitten-fight-health-care-rally/)

:silly: