Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 60 seat majority

  1. #1
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,962

    Default 60 seat majority

    Was it always the case that any piece of major legislation needed 60 votes to pass? Was the opposition willing to philibuster anything they were opposed to?

    My memory is that a philibuster was something that was used only in extreme situations in which you were willing to go down in flames rather than let a piece of legislation come to vote. All the hype of the Dems losing the Mass seat seems overblown.
    If healthcare reform comes up debate will every Republican vote to continue the philibuster and tie up Congress?
    On some issues on can see people feeling strongly enough that they will philibuster and even if I oppose them I can understand why they feel that way, but it does not make sense to so strongly oppose Healthcare reform.


    I also think it was silly to make all of the consession to Nelson and Lieberman just to get the 60 vote majority. Even if Nelson and Lieberman would not vote for the bill were they going to be willing to philibuster it?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: 60 seat majority

    In the beginning there was no rule of 60 votes but then we got senate rule 22 which was intended to stop never ending filibuster. At the time it needed two/thirds majority to stop a filibuster and then in the seventies or eighties it became sixty votes which is less than two/thirds majority. My understanding is that it was originally meant to stop debate and have a vote not to just be counted as the vote.

    When it comes to a vote it is to the Vice President if there is a tie. I believe that on any vote beside amending the constitution or treaties they only need a simple majority to pass legislation, I think. Nothing would ever get done if you needed a super majority to pass all laws. Also I dont believe that our senators were supposed to abuse the filibuster as they have.

  3. #3
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: 60 seat majority

    The new reality in the Senate is - for any contentious legislation - you need 60 votes to pass it.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: 60 seat majority

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    The new reality in the Senate is - for any contentious legislation - you need 60 votes to pass it.
    True and which is why some say senate rule 22 might be unconstitutional.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •