"The minority would basically control the Senate"

[villager]

<snip>


Basically, without 60 votes, under Senate rules, debate could go on forever and ever. This is called the filibuster. So basically, if Brown wins in Massachusetts tomorrow, the Republicans, with 41 votes, would have enough votes as the minority to prevent the Democrats, the majority with 59 votes, from ever bringing a final vote on health care reform or any other legislative priority to the floor. The minority would basically control the Senate.

In a speech last night to supporters in Florida, Vice President Joe Biden, who spent more than half of his life in the Senate, criticized the situation and the need for a 60 vote super-majority to get anything accomplished. "As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators," he said.

"No democracy has survived needing a super majority," added the vice president.

<snip>

From a CBS article, explaining the "super majority" to more mainstream, non-politics obsessed readers. The question is, why the hell is this never the case when the Dems are in the "minority?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113243.shtml

[Mz Pip]

1. It already does.

So whatelse is new?

For me it's all about the SCOTUS because you can count on the Repugs to fillibuster any and all of Obama's future pics.

[MrMickeysMom]

5. My thouhts exactly

Amazing, isn't it? This is America, and look at what we've become with these knuckle draggers leading the majority around by the nose.

[flvegan]

6. [phone]

[robinlynne]

2. Well, the Democrats had total contorl of the Senate under the Bush years then.

[krawhitham]

23. and the caved

it they would have stuck together the repukes could not have passed anything

[Fumesucker]

3. Funny, this didn't happen when the Repubs had a majority but lacked a supermajority..

:shrug:

[d_b]

10. funny indeed.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. It did in fact when the Republicans wanted to privatize social security

The fact is that most of the Republican agenda is basically wars and tax cuts. Wars are primarily conducted by the executive branch and tax cuts can be done through reconciliation. Republicans (in general) don't create big new government programs unless they are security related and when they did that they effectively used 9/11 to make Democrats cave on those.

[Fumesucker]

24. TARP: Proposed on Sept 19, 2008, enacted Oct 3, 2008

[dorktv]

20. Dems are not locksteppers.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Exactly. No one has ever "needed" 60 votes until we got them

Something is very fishy.

Repubs never had this number but now all of a sudden we need every one to accomplish anything. BS.

The Republicans can have 51 in the Senate counting a VP tie breaker and do anything they like.

[SharonAnn]

9. Well, we have Dems who sometimes vote GOP. There aren't GOP who voted Dem.

[laughingliberal]

18. It's a shame but we had a bunch of Dems in the Senate who voted Bush's agenda

I think they started out opposing him, somewhat. After all, the Republicans had to do the tax cut under reconciliation but after 9/11 everyone was peeing the panties that someone might call them unpatriotic or some other nationalistic slur.

[notesdev]

7. Because he's lying?

Biden himself was part of the Democratic group of Senators that were able to use the threat of filibuster to stop, among other things, some of the more radical Bush appointments. Now suddenly it turns the Constitution on its head? Then what were you doing, Joe, in between the time you swore an oath to the Constitution as a Senator, and the present?

[rhett o rick]

21. I will tell you what he means. Last year 139 cloture votes were forced by the republicans.

That's twice as many as ever before in history. At least recent history. Time to dump the filibuster rule.

[pnwmom]

8. The Dems don't do this because Dems believe in working to run an effective

government. The Rethugs don't believe government can do anything effectively, and they work to prove that.

[tridim]

11. Democratic Senators only get three-fifths of a vote.

[KittyWampus]

12. I think you've found the answer, tridim. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry

[kelly1mm]

16. Haha! loves me the constitutional humor!nt

[laughingliberal]

19. True and infuriating.

I know they don't want to go nuclear due to the fact that it would be a problem if the Republicans ever regained control but it does seem now would be the time to do it if there ever was a time.

[rhett o rick]

22. very good. nt

[MadHound]

13. You see, this is why I want Coakley to win

So the Democrats can't use this whole "don't have sixty votes" bullshit as one more excuse for their being unable to do a single thing right.

Geez, how did those previous Democratic Congresses ever accomplish anything when they only had a bit over fifty votes in the Senate? Oh, yeah, that's right, they had a spine and knew how to fight, traits that are sadly lacking in this Congress.

[StreetKnowledge]

17. It didn't hurt that the other side had people with a brain.

Not today for the GOP. All of the GOP are either knuckle-draggers or scared to death of the knuckle draggers. That's why I must say this - if the teabag nutter wins tomorrow, Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes. Gingrich already gave him the precedent in 1996. Use it, Barack, and let the voters decide if they don't like your policies by putting the GOP back in. Run reconciliation on everything, and to hell with the Rethugs.

[Skittles]

14. they already control it