Folks.... WTF are you buying this 60 vote talk for?

[TwixVoy]

Have this many DUers actually never read the constitution or taken a high school civics class? I keep seeing all these posts talking about 60 votes.

It takes a simple majority to pass a bill in the senate. It has since the constitution was ratified. If it is a 50/50 tie the vice president breaks the tie. This is one of the few powers the vice president has. It may take 60 votes to stop a filibuster, but what most people don't seem to realize is that a filibuster simply creates a delay of moving on to further business. Eventually the person giving the filibuster can't go on anymore.

I can't believe how easy it is to play the masses in this country for suckers. If a senator went on TV and told the masses it takes 80 votes to pass a bill in the senate 95% of the idiot fools in this country would probably believe it and have no idea it takes 51 votes.

I just can't believe how easy it is to play people americans for suckers. It really is so pathetic. The reason it is so easy? Most americans really are ignorant fools.

[phantom power]

1. I've always thought it was a load of horse-shit.

[asdjrocky]

2. Shhhh.

It's only 60 because the Dems are in the majority. There is a whole different rule book they don't show us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Everyone will be along in a moment to explain why you're wrong

A filibuster doesn't need a person talking continually anymore.

[grytpype]

4. Wow, you're an expert, aren't you.

You people who think this is easy, that we could get any bill we want enacted in our broken, corrupt, shit-rigged Senate without 60 votes, are just deluded.

[TwixVoy]

10. No.... I've just reached a 12th grade level of education

The level of education necessary to have learned simple facts about the way this government functions according to the constitution. Including the simple fact it takes a simple majority to pass a bill in the senate, and has since the day the constitution was ratified.

The sad thing is that you consider that level of education an "expert".

Well I suppose if an 8th grader walks in to a room of mental retards he would be an "expert" in their eyes. Sadly a 12th grade level of education is now an "expert" to many americans it seems. And anyone who employs that knowledge is looked down on as you have done. That about says it all.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. the Senate decides it's own rules so it is operating well within

the bounds of the Constitution. Everyone here is all gung ho about this 50 vote bit...however, when there are 60 votes on the other side of the aisle (and it will happen again) these same people will be screaming for 60 votes and filibusters...unreal.

sP

[Lorien]

21. The "50 vote bit" was what Bushco used to pass their agenda

it was very effective. So why purposely hobble ourselves unless they don't WANT to pass meaningful HCR?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. no they didn't...

a cloture vote is required before voting on passage...the Senate, according to it's own rules, decides this. The only time Bushco used the 50 vote bit was surrounding the confirmation of judges. However, they never changed the rules of the Senate so there WAS a cloture vote before confirmation. Remember the Gang o' 12 (I think it was 12). These are the compromisers who got together to work a deal for cloture...

sP

[closeupready]

53. You owe me another cup of coffee.

and I'll send you a bill for getting my sweater dry-cleaned. :rofl:

[arcadian]

64. ouch

burn.

[Lorien]

16. You mean like BushCo did for eight long years? It only took them 51 votes.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. no, it didn't.

the Senate must have a cloture vote before voting on passage of anything. It is in their rules...

sP

[malaise]

30. I remember more than a few instances of Cheney showing

up to secure the vote so it must have been 51.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. right...right after the cloture vote... n/t

[xultar]

5. That's what I thought too but I'm only an idiot so I let the people who know talk.

[iceman66]

6. As long as Harry Reid insists that he needs 60 votes,

that is what it is going to take to move a bill to passage.

It SHOULDN'T be that way, for the reasons you describe and others, but as long as Reid is running the Senate that is the reality.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. True. The 60 number is just to avoid filibuster. Let the Repubs filibuster

Who gives a !@#$.

It would shine a spotlight on them as obstructionists.

BUT the 60 was a smokescreen used to explain away all the "compromise" necessary - like giving up drug re-importation, the public option, annual caps, etc.

YOU RAISE A GREAT POINT.

[TheWraith]

39. No, he makes a bullshit point. Allowing them to filibuster means the bill dies.

As does healthcare reform. And the only way to shut down a filibuster is 60 votes.

A filibuster is NOT what people here think it is.

[DainBramaged]

8. It's known as Harry "Who me?" Reid caving in to the Puke's threats

because a puppy has a bigger spine.

[kirby]

9. You are wrong...Unreccing...

Not only are you accusing DUers of not knowing civics, but you are completely and totally wrong.

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. "

In 1890, the Senate determined that its rules included a requirement for cloture (a vote to end debate). It currently requires 60 votes to invoke cloture. It still requires 67 votes to change the rules.

[TwixVoy]

12. Are you incapable of reading at an 8th grade level?

It takes 2/3rds to EXPEL A MEMBER. Do you know what that means? To strip a senator of his title and send him home.

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;"

This is the part of the constitution that derives 51 votes to pass a bill.

The way you wrote your response suggests that you actually don't know what the term "cloture" means. "Cloture" - for the layman - means "To force the end of a filibuster".

Guess what? Cloture is only useful if you want to shut the guy up early.

Eventually the filibuster HAS TO END because the senator can not go on forever. He will eventually pass out. At that point you can pass the bill with 51 votes. CLOTURE IS NOT REQUIRED TO VOTE ON A BILL ONLY TO END A FILIBUSTER EARLY!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. cloture is about ending debate...

and yes, it does map to the filibuster, but the rules are that it takes 60 votes to end debate...a filibuster is simply denying cloture and is in no way required that it be just one person talking to be a filibuster. i don't know where you get that other than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

The Senate rules REQUIRE a cloture vote before moving on to voting on the bill. No, that is NOT in the Constitution, but it IS in the Senate rules. And since the Constitution grants the Senate the right to makes its own rules, then it IS Constitutional.

sP

[TwixVoy]

24. No it is NOT constitutional

Because the constitution mandates that a simple majority is all that is required to do business.

THAT is what the "nuclear option" involves.

You do realize how the "nuclear option" actually works, right? No apparently you don't even know that. You just saw the "nuclear option" catch phrase on your TEEVEEE but never actually bothered to look up what it entails or how it works.

All it takes is a senator standing up and saying "Point of order. The constitution requires only a simple majority to do business. The rule requiring 60 votes is unconstitutional". THAT is what the "nuclear option" is. Standing up and making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional.

End of debate. The only reason it is made such a big deal of is that no one in the senate has the balls to invoke this point of order.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. so the Senate making their own rules is non-Constitutional

OK...you're right. End of debate...you refuse to understand and you just want to call people idiots when there are parts you don't get either. The nuclear option was about changing the rules...it is not about point-of-order...talk about ignorance...

sP

[TwixVoy]

34. Here is an article that lays it out for you

I made it simple in layman terms for you. If you couldn't understand that I doubt you will understand a more in depth explanation, but just in case. This confirms EVERY WORD I HAVE SAID.

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

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 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."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. as i said in the previous post

it is about changing the rules of the Senate...thank you for confirming that!

sP

[TwixVoy]

41. You've just demonstrated to anyone on this site who actually can read

that you have reading comprehension below what a typical grade school student would have.... The sad thing is you don't see that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

43. so...you cannot see that it changes the rules?

wow...talk about seeing what you want to see...i bolded it for you...i guess that doesn't help you.

sP

[TwixVoy]

46. You bolded the line you understood

if you understood the rest of the words in the paragraph you would understand how it relates to sentence you bolded.

Yes the end result would be a change in the rules, because the 60 vote requirement would no longer be valid. That does not negate the rest of the paragraph which you apparently can not understand due to a lack of background knowledge of parliamentary procedure and roberts rules of order.

I suppose an analogy would be like giving you a book to read intended for people who hold a PhD physics while you had less than a high school education on the matter. You would read the book and only highlight sentences you understood, but would have no background knowledge needed to understand the rest of it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

48. right...it changes the rules so THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING

but you refuse to get that. what you are asking for with this point of order is really about voting on Senate rules. But you refuse to see that. You act like it is no big deal to change the rules...you're right. You can get this passed with 50 votes...but if there is an inability to pass a cloture vote and they go through with this tactic, it changes the rules and cloture votes are no longer required. Ask yourself this question...why didn't the republicans do it? why, because they knew damned well that it would come back to haunt them in the future if they invalidated that rule. and that is why the dems won't do it either. but you keep believing that cloture is non-constitutional...

[kirby]

56. Actually...

He bolded the line to highlight that this so called 'nuclear option' woulc be a permanent change to the Senate rules. It would not just be a maneuver to get a single health care bill passed. The maneuver would actually change the precedent of the Senate. Once the new precedent is set, all future actions would no longer be subject to a filibuster. That means future Republican Senates could pass anything too. The Senate Parliamentarian has to rule based on precedent. Perhaps the rules could be changed in the future with 67 votes.

I'm just curious, what gives you the right to question peoples reading level or education. You sure are one arrogant poster.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

57. twix-voy is into 'arrogant' today for some reason

there is an actual admission below somewhere that the point of order bit is just the beginning...

sad...and as someone said a little earlier: amusing.

sP

[dionysus]

62. this is the same poster that had a thread saying "college is for suckers" no joke...

[dionysus]

61. you talk tough but the reality is you don't have clue 1 what the fuck you're talking about.

:rofl:

[kirby]

26. Seriously?

I was pretty clear - why are you talking about expelling a member? That part of the sentence has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I note that you failed to quote what I posted from the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution -- "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

What part of the "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings" dont you understand?

Further adding to the ignorance of your response, there is no such thing technically as a filibuster. The proper term is 'invoking cloture'.
The Senate has a process. Unlike the House, the Senate rules state that there is unlimited debate allowed on a bill. If someone wants to 'filibuster', it requires 60 votes (it used to be 67 but was changed in 1975) to end debate. It is a misconception that someone actually need to keep talking. All they need to do it sit on the house floor and keep objecting.

"Guess what? Cloture is only useful if you want to shut the guy up early."

Uh, the only way to vote on a bill is for the debate to have ended. The only way for debate to have ended is by either unanimous consent (not a single objection) or a successful cloture vote.

[TwixVoy]

38. READ about parliamentary procedure and roberts rules of order and actually LEARN SOMETHING

Under parliamentary procedure & roberts rules of order YOU CAN MAKE A POINT OF ORDER BEFORE SOMEONE HAS FINISHED SPEAKING.

Here is some reading to explain how it works. And yes - it IS unconstitutional to have a rule in the senate that conflicts with the simple majority clause to do business that is in the constiution. Which is what that point of order would be about.

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

"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 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."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

42. just yelling point of order is NOT WHERE IT ENDS

it requires a majority vote at that point, TRUE, but it changes the rules of the Senate...fuck...read the whole thing and stop copying and pasting and claiming that all you have to do is yell point of order and it is all over with...

sP

[kirby]

49. You do realize...

Of course you can make a point of order. I never argued that.

Your assertion that it is unconstitutional to have a rule in the senate that 'conflicts with the simply majority' clause is absurd. For the third time, the Constitution Article 1, Section 5, grants the House and Senate the authority to make their own rules. That fact that people think it is unfair or undemocratic does not change that fact.

It is odd that your original post which called out people on DU as uneducated did not even mention the so called 'nuclear option'. You have either shifted your argument to something new or were just plain confusing in your original post.

You do realize that the so called 'Nuclear option' is not a one time deal, right? Once this maneuver is pulled, it changes the precedent and the Senate rules forever. The rules cannot be changed back without 67 votes. That means the next Senate (perhaps Republican) would no longer be required to honor a filibuster.

[TheWraith]

45. You have gotten too much of your information from movies.

The filibuster does NOT work how you think it does. Somebody does not need to stand there talking forever.

[notesdev]

13. You are factually correct

but what you are missing is that the 60-vote tradition is so strong it was able to restrain a unified GOP government from doing all sorts of things it wanted to do. Imagine how much deeper the destruction would be without it, before you carelessly toss it aside. Remember, we used to call overriding the 60-vote threshold the "nuclear option".

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asdjrocky]

22. It really does drive you nuts after awhile doesn't it?

I call it the Mathewsing of America.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. you are showing your ignorance...

please...you're normally so with it. Cloture is about ending debate. There is no rule in the Senate that requires ONE person to be the filibustering party. Now, 1 CAN do it if the votes are right but there is no requirement that he talk nonstop.

And the nuclear option was NOT about claiming someone is out of order. It was the fact that you can change the rules of the Senate per strict majority vote. This way, you could END the need for a Cloture vote with simple majority. THAT is the nuclear option...

Stop calling other people idiots...you don't get it all either.

sP

[TwixVoy]

33. Yes, it IS about claiming someone is out of order

Have you ever heard of "Roberts rules of order" or "parliamentary procedure"? The basis of the rules in the senate?

In order to invoke the nuclear option - per the rules of the senate - you MUST stand up and say "point of order".

For you to say it is not about "claiming someone is out of order" tells me you have no clue how parliamentary procedure actually works.

Jesus christ now you have forced me to waste my time going out the net and doing your homework for you. Homework that should have been done when you were in the 12th grade.

Here is an article explaining and confirming EVERY WORD THAT I HAVE SAID. Including debunking your claim that the nuclear option isn't about a point of order. Along with the fact that point of order would be the claim the rule is unconstitutional. I expect a full apology from you and an admission you didn't actually know how parliamentary procedure works.

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

"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 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."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. this is about CHANGING SENATE RULES...

not just yelling point of order...damn...read the whole fucking thing...


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."


sP

[Egnever]

40. keep digging

you are looking more foolish by the minute.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

44. this is frustrating...all knowing people who really don't get it...

scary. and others just going happily along...wow.

sP

[Egnever]

50. i find it sort of amusing actualy

this OP is making himself look like a complete moron all while calling others uneducated. The Irony is awesome.

[notesdev]

47. Say wut?

The current 60-vote thing is just Senate procedural rules - i.e. tradition - and is not required at all in the Constitution.

The "nuclear option" is reducing the threshold for passing a motion of closure (usually suggested to reduce it to 55), it has nothing to do with points of order. It's a change in the parliamentary rules that presently result in the 60-vote barrier.

I don't know where you got the "point of order" bit from, but I can tell you without a doubt that that is not what has been referred to as the "nuclear option". If that's all it was, do you really think that not one GOP Senator would have raised a point of order in all the years they controlled the chamber?

[TwixVoy]

51. Go read my article I have linked to several times on exactly how the nuclear option works

and you will see full well it IS about a point of order. Or I should say it starts with one.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. that is the closest you have gotten to the truth yet

it STARTS with a point-of-order...

sP

[notesdev]

55. Spare yourself

ok fine it can start with a point of order (probably doesn't need to btw), but that's not the essence of what it is about.

It's about effecting a permanent change in the parliamentary rules so that fewer votes are required to open/close debate.

My point with regard to that is that you should think long and hard before advocating it, as Democrats will not always hold the majority (hell, at the rate they're going, they could lose both chambers as soon as 11 months from now).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. It's a lame excuse for being corporate sellouts

That's all.

Bush got almost all his agenda through with 55 Senators. The only major initiative he failed on was privatizing Social Security and that's because that's the only time every Dem without exception stood united to protect it. And guess what--Bush backed down!

Imagine if all the Dem Senators had stood united on the IWR, the bankruptcy bill, the Patriot Act, and other abominations that the Bush administration forced on the American people.

But na, that would have required integrity and courage, something that appears to be lacking in a lot of "our" representatives.

[abluelady]

17. Here is Some Information on the Subject

I can't figure out how to link but check out this website.


http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Super-Majority_Votes_in_the_Senate.pdf

[spanone]

18. it doesn't matter one bit what we think of 60 votes...not one bit.

[Egnever]

27. I dont think you know what you are talking about

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

[RoyGBiv]

28. I wish I knew what the point of this was ...

Is your purpose simply to deny the reality that the Senate gets to make its own rules regarding how it functions? This bit also happens to be in the Constitution, btw, but I won't insult you by implying you didn't do well in high school.

If you want to argue that the filibuster needs to go, fine. Do that. I'd suggest that what really needs to be done is the elimination of dual tracking and a return to the filibuster when it was actually difficult to do. But let's not live in this fantasy world where just sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending the way things work is not the way things work actually helps anything.

[SteelPenguin]

29. Well it's more complicated than that

It's not Mr. Smith goes to Washington anymore, and it's not just one guy filibustering. It's 40, or 41. They'll be up their reading from the bible, and pass the floor to someone else, etc, etc. What's happened recently is that if they know that they can't get cloture, they bring other business to the floor.

This is what people are talking about when they say that you don't even need to stand up on the floor to talk while filibustering. It's because the majority party decided to move on to other business.

However to pass Civil Rights legislation the Senate Majority Leader refused to allow any other business onto the floor of the senate. They let all the opponents speak and filibuster and eventually forced a vote. That was when they had balls in the Senate.

That's what the Dems should do. Play to the PR here. Put forward a GOOD bill even if they only have 52-53 votes on it, and LET the fuckers filibuster, and then don't let any other business on the floor, and play it as the Republicans are being obstructionist. That they're preventing kids from getting healthcare. From poor people having affordable insurance. Etc. Make them stand up there on the floor 24 hours a day 7 days a week and talk until they break.

[Xenotime]

36. Most americans are ingnorant fools...That's why WE have the power.

[closeupready]

52. I know. Amen to that. Another distraction, just like 'Lieberman the traitor' who isn't even a Dem.

n/t

[unblock]

58. "Eventually the person giving the filibuster can't go on anymore."??

you seem to be thinking pre-1975 senate rules. it's no longer the case that someone needs to stand up and read the phone book. under senate rule 22 as amended in 1975, it's no longer necessary for any senator to continuously refuse to yield the floor.

all the filibustering group needs to do is demand a cloture vote, and if there isn't 60 votes to stop debate, then the bill itself can never be called for a vote. the filibustering group doesn't need to do a damn thing after the initial demand for a cloture vote, other than to vote no on the cloture votes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. All the Republicans need to do is call quorum votes

and that only needs 1 Republican or arsehole Lieberman present at a time. They could keep that up indefinitely.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."
...
Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, was majority leader in 1988, when Democrats controlled 54 seats and wanted to push through campaign finance reform.

But Republican minority leader Alan Simpson of Wyoming was easily able to block it by sitting on the Senate floor and occasionally noting the absence of a quorum, thwarting a vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[harun]

60. Great post, you'll see many idiots here disagree with you though.

So if they are disagreeing here, good luck convincing the masses (who are much dumber).

[Egnever]

63. Theres something very special about

People with no clue what they are talking about calling others dumb.

Grats on your stunning ignorance.