So why do President Obama's Cabinet Appointments Now Require 60 Votes for Confirmation?

[Better Believe It]

Since when?

George W. Bush only need 51 Senate votes for his appointments.

Have the Republicans threatened a filibuster against Solis and other Obama nominations?

I've seen no indication of this.

If this news article is accurate, it means that without even a Republican filibuster threat, Senate Democrats have agreed to accept the false Republican claim that Democrats need 60 Senate votes to pass or approve of anything!

If the Senate Republicans actually threaten to filibuster against Solis (they haven't done so yet) take them on!

But, to once again cave-in to the Republican Senators demands is indefensible.

Remember, Senate Democrats can always change the Senate rules that will prevent filibusters and require only 51 votes to approve President Obama's appointments and legislation.

The Republicans used that threat of a rules change very effectively in 2005 to pass their right-wing agenda and Bush's appointments.



--------------------------------------------
Senate to take test vote on Solis
Associated Press
February 13, 2009

The Senate late Friday set a test vote for mid-February on Rep. Hilda Solis' nomination as labor secretary.

The California Democrat won committee approval this week after more than a month of delays over questions about tax liens that her husband recently paid and her role as a board member and treasurer of American Rights at Work. The nonprofit group is working to pass a bill to make it easier for workers to form unions.

A 60-vote majority will be required in the Feb. 24 test vote to advance Solis' nomination to a final vote.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/13/national/w202601S02.DTL&type=politics

And what if Hilda Solis only obtains 59 votes in this so-called "test vote"?

[Gman]

1. If she only gets 59 votes

it means the GOP can kill her nomination via a filibuster. If they get 60, then the final vote is assured to be at 50%+1 or better.

[Better Believe It]

2. The Republicans haven't threatened a filibuster against Solis.

So why do we need 60 votes?

If you have read anything indicating a Republican filibuster against Solis I'd appreciate a link to the article.

[Gman]

13. I think the thinking is to assume there will be a filibuster

and if there's not, they have the votes anyway.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

30. Wow! The 'Bush Doctrine" all over again

Bush said we had the right to attack a country if we thought that they were thinking of attacking us, or might be thinking it in the future.

The Dems have redefined "majority" from the established "51 out of 100" to "60 out of 100" based on the concept that the Repugs might be thinking of a filibuster. The f*ckers don't even have to threaten to filibuster to get their way, our whimpy Senate leaders will do it for them!

I bet if we had a 99-1 majority the Dems would still cave in to the demands of that one Repug.

[Honeycombe8]

14. I don't know if they've threatened that, but they sure do hate her.

The dogs have railed against her several times on TV, after her name was put out there.

Her husband had tax liens? Say it ain't so.

[Better Believe It]

3. If the Republicans filibuster against Solis here are the Democratic Options

If the Republicans organize a Senate floor filibuster against Solis and/or other appointments, the Democrats have the following options.

1. They can surrender to the mere threat of a filibuster and withdraw the nomination.

2. They can surrender to an actual filibuster after taking one or two quick cloture votes to give the appearance of resistance just before they withdraw the nomination rather than let a filibuster come to a conclusion.

3. Let the Republicans filibuster until the public tires of Republican obstructionism and 60 Senators finally agree to end debate and proceed with an up and down vote for Solis.

4. Use the so-called "nuclear option" in which the Senate simply and easily changes Senate rules which would require 51 votes to approve Hilda Solis and prohibit any Republican filibuster.

So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators in 2005?

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear 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 appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

[Phx_Dem]

5. I'd make them fillibuser until they dropped dead on the Senate floor.

Literally. The Dems could organize so they could withstand a Republican fillibuster for a fucking month, if necessary.

At some point, someone needs to call their bluff and NOT BACK DOWN (that means you, Harry).

[onenote]

37. actually you're wrong about the Democrats abilty to withstand a filibuster for a month

Filibusters put all of the burden on the party that is opposed to the filibuster. Its easy to keep a filibuster going -- all you need is one member to hold the floor, and when he/she is done, another can look to be recognized and keep the debate going. But if there isn't a quorum present (51 Senators), then everything grinds to a halt. The repubs don't actually have to keep talking. So in order to "organzie to withstand" a repub filibuster for a month, the Democrats would have to make sure at least 50 of their Senators were on the Senate floor at all times. That isn't going to happen.


There is a reason that traditional filibusters are rarely forced -- they are harder on the party opposing them and they almost always succeed in forcing the majority to kill a bill or water it down.

[Better Believe It]

4. Still waiting for someone to explain why Republicans only needed 51 Senate votes to pass bills and .

and appointments.

How come the Republicans only needed 51 votes to approve legislation and appointments when George W. Bush was President and now the Democrats need 60 votes with Barack Obama as President?

Anyone care to answer this reasonable question?

[Occam Bandage]

6. We filibustered plenty of his judicial appointments. Remember the whole

"nuclear option" debate? We didn't filibuster nearly as many bills as we should have, but that's water under the bridge.

[IsItJustMe]

20. Because the Democrats never showed any spine during the Bush administration and only very rarely

threatened to fillibuster not much of anything at all that Bush ever did.

The Republicans don't play like that. They threaten on anything and everything.

[TayTay]

23. Because Democrats in the 109th Congress voted for cloture

in enough votes to make them work.

Once cloture is voted or agreed to, then a simple majority works to pass legislation.
Cloture vote on Mar 8, 2005 on the Bankruptcy bill: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00029

14 Dems for voted FOR cloture and to end debate and get the bill to an "upperdown" vote:
Biden (D-DE)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

31 Dems voted Nay
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
*** Jeffords (I-VT) former Republican Senator who caucused with the Dems in this session.
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

60 votes are needed to invoke cloture and end the debate after 30 hours. Had 10 of the Dems who voted FOR cloture switched their votes, this bill would have been dead.

There are twenty (20) instances of cloture motions being filed in the Senate in the first session of the 109th Congress (2005.)Seven (7) cloture motions were not sustained.

Why do they need 60 now? Because Republicans adhere to their party positions more than Democrats did.

[leftofthedial]

7. the "Democrats" would make it 100 votes if they thought we weren't watching them

[suston96]

8. To answer the original question.....60 votes are needed to invoke cloture - stop debating.

After that, a simple majority is needed to confirm.

[Better Believe It]

11. But Democratic Senators can change Senate rules so that only 51 votes are needed to pass bills ....

and approve Presidential appointments.

What is so hard to understand about this simple Senate procedure/rule which is in compliance with the U.S. Constitution?

Once again .... please read this carefully.

Democratic Senator are free to use the so-called "nuclear option". This parliamentary tactic enables Senate Democrats to simply and easily change Senate rules so that only 51 votes would be requires to approve President Obama's appointments and legislation. Using this Senate rule would allow a simple majority to end debate and come to an immediate up and down vote.

Does everyone understand what this means or have I been somehow unclear?

So what really is the "nuclear option" which Republicans used to scare the crap out of Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators in 2005?

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear 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 appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

[WeDidIt]

9. There's a simple answer

The Democrats took the stance that the president is afforded certain considerations with his cabinet while Bush was in office and strictly speaking, simple ideological differences could not rise to the level of a reason to obstruct a presidential appointment to his cabinet.

The REpublicans, on the other hand, have take an approach of "obstruct at all costs because the only way we can win is if the nation sinks into the worst calamity in history".

[book_worm]

10. The GOP is willing to use the minority rules while the Dems weren't when they were in the minority.

[high density]

12. Up or down vote time

This 60 vote stuff is for the birds. We can't allow the Republicans to shut down our government because they want us to crash and burn for their own twisted opportunistic views of the 2010 election.

[Thrill]

15. Its was only a couple yrs ago, the Republicans set a record for fillibusters

My guess it they are going to make Obama get sixty for just about everything

[Better Believe It]

18. So the Republicans are still in control of the Senate?

"My guess it they are going to make Obama get sixty for just about everything"

The Senate could change the rules to 51 votes and stop filibusters if it was controlled by the Democrats.

Oh wait!

The Democrats are in control of the Senate!

[IsItJustMe]

21. They are not in control of the agenda and what comes up for a vote. But they are completely capable

of shooting down all the bills that go through the Senate by voting as a block against "ending debate" (You know, that C word).

[ContinentalOp]

16. "the nuclear option"? How infuriating.

Nobody is being killed. The planet would not be destroyed. I call that the "getting stuff done" option. But let me guess, Republicans came up with that term when Democrats were in the majority to scare us out of using it? And it worked. Congressional Dems are too spineless to do what is necessary because they're afraid the media will harp on this stupid "nuclear option" name.

[Unsane]

17. It is against Senate practice to filibuster presidential appointments

[Better Believe It]

19. Sure. :) So let's bring up Hilda Solis up for a vote on Tuesday

The Democrats won control of the Senate .... right?

[AZ Criminal JD]

22. The answer has been given to you

You obviously don't want to hear it. The Senate rules were voted on in early January and 60 votes are required to end filibusters. Those rules are not going to be changed in mid-stream no matter how much it upsets you.

[Better Believe It]

25. You have failed to research this matter and are 100% dead wrong. Let me prove it to you ....

Once again, the Senate leadership can at any time change Senate rules on debates, including those relating to filibusters.

What facts are you disputing or challenging in the following public information regarding the so-called "nuclear option" to stop filibusters?

So far not a single DU'ers has challenged or questioned with hard facts the ability of the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate to use the "nuclear option".

Can you do so with more than empty rhetoric?

I'm listening.

The Senate can use the so-called "nuclear option" in which the Senate simply and easily changes Senate rules so that only 51 votes would be required to approve Hilda Solis or any other Obama appointments and legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act. proh

So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators in 2005 and which some DLC'ers are afraid Democrats might use to stop Republican filibusters?

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear 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 appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. The so-called "nuclear option" was not used in the situation you describe

Threatened yes, by a few, but not used. The Senate is bound by tradition as opposed to the House. They are not going to use the nuclear option in this case. It would break tradition. They have their rules and are going to stay with them. It matters not what they "could" do. They aren't going to do it.

[Better Believe It]

31. I know that. Do you know why the Republicans didn't use the "nuclear option"?

It certainly wasn't because the Republicans didn't want to break Senate tradition. Tradition had nothing to do with the Republicans not using the "nucelar option".

The Republicans were able to back off from their "nuclear option" threat because of the Democratic surrender to that threat led by Senator Reid.

Senator Reid and a few of his associates made a "deal" with the Republican Senate leadership. Reid and company agreed that they would not filibuster against any of George W. Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court. And what did the Democrats get in return?
Nothing. That was some "deal".

Senator Reid and his band of conservative Democratic Senators kept their promise. As a result, two of the most reactionary, right-wing appointments possible to the Supreme Court were approved by the Senate without a filibuster.

The Senate does have a proud tradition of making their own Senate rules, including rules to bypass a filibuster, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

Once again, the following is clean, simple, very democratic and in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear 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 appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

[AZ Criminal JD]

32. The Senate doesn't change its rules after they are set in January

The fact that they could do it is irrelevant. They don't do it.

[Better Believe It]

33. The fact that the Senate makes rules in January is irrelevant. They can also change them later.

And under the U.S. Constitution they can make and change Senate rules after January or at anytime they wish.

So what is your point?

That they haven't done so? Yes they have.

So do you think the Senate Republicans could not have changed the Senate's rules when they threatened to use the "nuclear option" against Democrats in 2005?

If so, you must be the only person on the entire planet who believes that. And someone who is totally unfamiliar with Senate procedures and the U.S. Constitution.

[AZ Criminal JD]

34. No, I am not the only person.

There are 100 U.S. Senators who believe that. The 2005 Republicans didn't change the rules no matter what the threats. In fact, you are the only person on the entire planet who believes the rules could be changed. Some people just like to live in fantasy worlds. It helps them. Good luck.

[Better Believe It]

35. So who else agrees with you? It sure isn't Senator Reid or any other Democratic Senator!

I think you need to read some factual reports on why the Senate Republicans didn't change the rules to end filibusters by Senate Democrats. It seems you might have been out of the country, or perhaps off planet, when Senator Reid surrendered to the Republicans by promising to not lead any filibusters against George W. Bush's right-wing Supreme Court nominations. Mr. Reid kept his pledge.

Are you just kidding me, or are the above facts news to you?

The Senate is free to change rules ANYTIME they are in session, including changing and ending rules that were made in January or any other month of the year.

This is basic high school civics were talkin here, not rocket science.

So please explain where and how wikipedia and the people of planet Earth got it all wrong.

I'm listening!

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear 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 appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

[AZ Criminal JD]

36. Reid does agree with me. That why he hasn't changed the rules.

You keep posting shit from Wiki. U.S. Senators don't get their traditions and rules from Wiki. They know what their traditions are and they follow them. It matters not what the editors of Wiki say.

[tritsofme]

24. The "nuclear option" as it was described back then at least, only applied to judicial

appointments.

Not to legislation and not to other presidential appointments.

I think you are taking too much out of this article. Its a "test" vote only that a cloture vote is necessary to end debate and advance the nomination to the floor.

[Better Believe It]

26. The so-called "nuclear option" can be used to end debate on any matter before the Senate ....

not just Presidential appointments.

If a real Republican filibuster (not the call-in kind that Senator Reid prefers) takes place against the Solis nomination Senator Reid has two alternatives.

1. Let the Republicans continue a real floor debate and have cloture votes everyday until 60 votes are achieved.

2. Pass a Senate rules change that will end the filibuster and proceed with an immediate up and down vote.

Why are some DU'ers having such difficulty understanding how the so-called "nuclear option" works?

It's very clear, very simple and it's been used before in the Senate.

The Republicans understood it and were prepared to use it in 2005. That sent Senator Reid and some other Senate Democrats running for the hills with their tails between their legs. It seems the only thing that may scare Senator Reid and other conservative Democrats is the idea that they should threaten to use that procedure against Republicans!

[tritsofme]

27. The goal of the 2005 "nuclear option" was very narrow.

They would seek a ruling that the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional, a Dem senator would object, 50+VP could uphold the ruling and a new precedent would be set. They would then proceed directly to vote.

It was a shady way to get around the 66 vote threshold for a formal rules change.

[Better Believe It]

28. This can be broader and it will work to stop ALL obstructionist filibusters

"It was a shady way to get around the 66 vote threshold for a formal rules change."

Shady? It works. It's constitutional. And the threat of using this option just might scare the Republicans today as much as scared some weak Democrats in 2005.

And if it doesn't, too bad for the Republicans!

Like an old friend told me: "If you've got the Republicans by the balls and you don't squeeze them, they think you just like playing with them!"

Do you think FDR and the Democratic Senates under FDR would have used the nuclear option to stop any Republican filibusters?

Of course they would have.

If the Democratic Senate leadership refuses to act like they are leaders and control the Senate, the public will reject them in the next election.

If you can't play hardball with the big guys get off the field.

This is the Democrats last chance to show us what they've got. Either they are partisan fighters or they are easy pickens for the Republicans who know how to play hardball.

If the Democratic leadership in Congress act like weaklings the economy will go to hell and the Republicans will regain control of Congress and the White House in 2012.

It's a simple as that.

[onenote]

38. you assume, quite incorrectly, that Democrats would want to end the filibuster practice

A practice that they used, successfully, over 50 times between 2001 and 2007. In fact, the Democrats used the filibuster (or more precisely, cloture) practice to kill repub proposals several times in 2007 after the Dems had a majority.

Cloture is definitely being demanded more often than in the past, but often times its just a procedural. In a very large number of instances, cloture is agreed to by lopsided votes -- in 2007 over half of the motions for cloture that passed did so with at least 75 votes. The number of cloture motions defeated by the repubs in 2007 was 21 and in 2008 it was 18. In 2002/2003, the number of times the Democrats defeated cloture was 21 and 13. If you go back further in time to when the repubs captured control of the Senate during the Clinton years, you'll see that the Democrat successfully used cloture to block repub proposals on numerous occasions -- not as often as now, but not an insignficant number of times.