Up or Down Votes

the nuclear option happened when they change the votes needed to over-ride a filibuster by the minority party from 67 votes to 60. The Republicans had 60 votes so could exercise that option, but chose not to. The Dem's in the senate now do not have 60 guaranteed votes so can not attempt to threaten with such.

Changes to Senate rules

Because Senate rules require a 60-vote majority to end debate under most circumstances, a minority of 41 senators can prevent a final vote on most proposals, effectively defeating them. The practice of talking or debating on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place is known as a filibuster. A three-fifths vote, or a 60-vote majority, is required to approve cloture and end such debate. A formal change to the Senate's rules are even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 states that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

The Constitutional Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. (The constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent.) A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the presiding officer's ruling is upheld, the Senate will then hold a vote on the substantive measure under consideration. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate. The filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

the nuclear option happened when they change the votes needed to over-ride a filibuster by the minority party from 67 votes to 60.

The nuclear option was officially moved by Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D-NM) (1963), Senator George McGovern (D-SD) (1967), and Senator Frank Church (D-ID) (1969), but was each time defeated or tabled by the Senate. The option was adopted by the Senate three times in 1975 during a debate concerning the cloture requirement. A compromise was reached to reduce the cloture requirement from two-thirds (67 votes) to the three-fifths (60 votes) and also to approve a point of order revoking the earlier three votes in which the Constitutional Option had been invoked. (This was an effort to reverse the precedent that had been set for cloture by majority vote).

The Republicans had 60 votes so could exercise that option, but chose not to.

The Dem's in the senate now do not have 60 guaranteed votes so can not attempt to threaten with such.

Cyclo, I'm not one to defend McG, and you seem to have the facts on your side, but perhaps you make it a little extra difficult to admit mistakes when you berate him about being wrong beforehand. I know you two have a history of hostility and all, but in this case maybe you could allow him a graceful out for the sake of civility?

For example: yes McG, what you say seems to have been true in the 70's, but most recently the suggested nuclear option rule change was from 60 to 51 etc...

I'll try not to help you anymore in the future freeduck, Obviously Cyc knows everything so just ask him.

I don't know why we even need a website like this. It should be "Just ask Cycloptichorn."

Read what I wrote. I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology.

So the event last night at the capitol regarding an up or down vote, the filabuster, etc has raised a question in my mind.

Rewind to a year or two ago when Republicans threatened to shut down Congress when Democrats wouldn't give an up or down vote on Judicial members. Democrats objected.

Today Democrats are threatening to shut down Congress (or they are 'almost' threatening that) if the Republicans wouldn't give an up or down vote on the war. Republicans object.



So, the Democrats don't like it when parlimentary procedures are used against them, but they don't mind using them against Republicans.

AND

Republicans don't like it when parlimentary procedures are used against them, but they don't mind using them against Democrats.




Are there any differences in these two cases that I'm missing that might make this make sense to the general population?

It was never certain that a large proportion of the population passionately felt that Bush's judicial nominees ought to be quickly confirmed, whereas it is reasonable to say that a significant majority of the population (well over 51%) feel that the administration has handled the war badly, and want the war to end. Additionally, Bush got more of his judicial nominees and other appointed officials approved than was the case, for example, when Clinton faced a Republican dominated Congress. So the two situations are not necessarily analogous.

The Republicans under McConnell have signaled that they intend to force 60 votes on every bill from now on that has anything to do with Iraq at all. I don't recommend that the Dems change the rules, but it's a hell of a lot of obstructionism offered by the other side.

Reid had a great point - every amendment proposed by the dems would have passed easily if the Rep. leadership hadn't filibustered.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Republicans under McConnell have signaled that they intend to force 60 votes on every bill from now on that has anything to do with Iraq at all. I don't recommend that the Dems change the rules, but it's a hell of a lot of obstructionism offered by the other side.

Reid had a great point - every amendment proposed by the dems would have passed easily if the Rep. leadership hadn't filibustered.

Cycloptichorn

And every bill proposed by the repubs could have passed easily if the dems hadnt filibustered.
Its the way Washington works.
The minority party ALWAYS tries to block what the majority party wants.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Republicans under McConnell have signaled that they intend to force 60 votes on every bill from now on that has anything to do with Iraq at all. I don't recommend that the Dems change the rules, but it's a hell of a lot of obstructionism offered by the other side.

Reid had a great point - every amendment proposed by the dems would have passed easily if the Rep. leadership hadn't filibustered.

Cycloptichorn

And every bill proposed by the repubs could have passed easily if the dems hadnt filibustered.
Its the way Washington works.
The minority party ALWAYS tries to block what the majority party wants.

Are you talking about during the last few congresses?

Quote:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html

Triple the usual number. The Republicans are going beyond normal obstuctionism, into the realm of extremity. Do you deny this?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Republicans under McConnell have signaled that they intend to force 60 votes on every bill from now on that has anything to do with Iraq at all. I don't recommend that the Dems change the rules, but it's a hell of a lot of obstructionism offered by the other side.

Reid had a great point - every amendment proposed by the dems would have passed easily if the Rep. leadership hadn't filibustered.

Cycloptichorn

And every bill proposed by the repubs could have passed easily if the dems hadnt filibustered.
Its the way Washington works.
The minority party ALWAYS tries to block what the majority party wants.

Are you talking about during the last few congresses?

Quote:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html

Triple the usual number. The Republicans are going beyond normal obstuctionism, into the realm of extremity. Do you deny this?

Cycloptichorn

Why is it "blocking" legislation and obstructionism if the repubs do it,but good statemanship and doing the "will of the people" if the dems do it?

Either way,its the way DC works and there is nothing anyone can do about it.