APP - senate votes 60 to 39 for cloture on health care debate

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
yep the senate voted to debate health care

watch the amendments fly...and the delays by the gop

it makes me wonder who was promised what and what remains to be promised to get it passed
 
Last edited:
yep the senate voted to debate health care

watch the amendments fly...and the delays by the gop

Hold on, I thought cloture is designed to end debate (usually meaning a fillibuster, not real debate), so that an up-or-down vote can take place. Is this not the case here, or, should I ask, what is the next step?
 
Hold on, I thought cloture is designed to end debate (usually meaning a fillibuster, not real debate), so that an up-or-down vote can take place. Is this not the case here, or, should I ask, what is the next step?

endless debate and amendments plus deals to yet be made

and another cloture vote to end debate and call for a vote

but first it has to move to the senate floor for debate


cloture from wiki

A similar procedure was adopted in the United States of America in response to the actions of isolationist senators who attempted to talk out, or filibuster, a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson urged the Senate to change its rules to thwart what he called a "little group of willful men", to which the Senate responded by introducing cloture in the form of Rule 22 on March 8, 1917.[1] Cloture was invoked for the first time on November 15, 1919,[2] during the 66th Congress, to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.[3]
The cloture rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof.[4][5] For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[6] However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Democratic Senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.
In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. (For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.) [6]
The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered. (The Democratic Party had held a two-thirds majority in the 89th Congress of 1965, but regional divisions among Democrats meant that many filibusters were invoked by Southern Democrats against civil rights bills supported by the Northern wing of the party.) Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.
The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. In order to invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate Rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators "present and voting") still applies.[7]
The procedure for "invoking cloture," or ending a filibuster, is as follows:

  • A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
  • The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
  • The clerk reads the petition.
  • The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Monday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
  • On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present.
  • The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
  • The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.
After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

  • No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.[8]
  • No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
  • No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
  • All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
  • Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
  • The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
  • No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.
The ability to invoke cloture was last attained by a US political party in the 111th Congress, by the Democrats, with the help of two independents.[9]
 
Last edited:
The Senate version moves to the floor for debate, after which, there will be a vote, then the bill is combined with the House bill and they both have to vote again on the final version. It would be at least mid-January before the president would have a bill to sign. Something tells me that is being optimistic, there is a lot left to debate.

Remember, this is the KEYSTONE Democrat agenda item. If they could not have moved the bill out of committee and onto the floor for debate, it would have been a monumental failure for the party. If there is any real surprise here, it is the difficulty in getting the votes to move it to debate. What should have been a slam dunk, has been rife with problems and controversy. Certainly, there is more to come!
 
The only reason it made it to the floor is the democrats bribed Landrieu with 300 million in pork for her state. Good job guys. Really gives the public reason to trust you.
 
yep the senate voted to debate health care

watch the amendments fly...and the delays by the gop

it makes me wonder who was promised what and what remains to be promised to get it passed
Well remember what John McCain said. Two things you never want to see made are laws and sausages. I can vouch for the later and the former appears to be even more disgusting.
 
Bipartisanship is not possible in the current enviornment. The Democrats want universal healthcare and the Republicans want to abolish all regulations on insurance companies. There's no common ground there, and any bill that attempted to would be ridiculous.
 
Why do we bother?

The Republicans are going to hate us afterwards anyway and are going to abolish the filibuster at their first oppurtunity. We should have used reconcilliation instead of deals.
 
Bipartisanship is not possible in the current enviornment. The Democrats want universal healthcare and the Republicans want to abolish all regulations on insurance companies. There's no common ground there, and any bill that attempted to would be ridiculous.

that's because you both are anti american and abhor individual rights and freedom.
 
wait a sec, landrieus vote wasn't bought for 300 mill, just because she says it wasn't?

Yes, it has been proclaimed a myth and debunked because a liberal pinhead said so! Don't you understand how this works? Liberals are so much smarter than the rest of us knuckledraggers, they get to claim things are myth and debunk them without anything more than their word. The reasoning behind this is, if it were not a debunked myth, the intellectually superior liberal would certainly know it! So obviously, because they say it is a myth, it must be!
 
Bipartisanship is not possible in the current enviornment. The Democrats want universal healthcare and the Republicans want to abolish all regulations on insurance companies. There's no common ground there, and any bill that attempted to would be ridiculous.

democrats get universal healthcare for themselves only, and they are the only ones that get taxed the necessary amount to support it.

:good4u:
 
Back
Top