re. Filibuster: Will there ever be a situation important enough for Dems

[rman]

to filibuster, while at the same time being unimportant enough for Repubs to not use their "nuclear option"?

[fasttense]

1. Good question. n/t

[bryant69]

2. It seems unlikely

But then again, the majority of the Republicans will support the Nuclear option - the problem is getting enough that they can't get the 51 votes necessary to fire the Nuclear option - if just a few Republicanoids are concerned enough about the nominee (or whatever) that they won't go along, well, than you can preserve the filibuster.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[zbdent]

3. Especially when you consider the fact that

Harriet Miers was thrown out by CONSERVATIVES for not being forthcoming enough about eliminating women's rights - that is a red flag right there . . . essentially eliminated for not being enough of a CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST Judicial nomination . . .

[rodeodance]

4. If it matters, then it matters enough to fillibuster--some Dem said this

yesterday on a talk show.

Good slogan--but it seems the Dems will only make a stand--to put on their records--not the fillybuster.

[Vinca]

5. No. The Democrats could threaten to filibuster Charlie Manson

and the Republicans would drag out the nuclear option. I say go for the filibuster and if they use the nuclear option we can either use it to our benefit or change the rules when we take back the Senate. The only bet we're taking is whether another justice will "leave us" before we have a majority. It's a large wager, but a necessary one. Alito is dangerous.

[TomClash]

6. No

when thousands of African-Americans were denied the vote in Florida in 2000, no one in the Senate stood up to challenge the results. Does anyone really expect them to stand up to Alito or any other Repuke bill?

[seabeyond]

7. tell me about the fillibuster. they fillibuster then vote and alito

wins? the fillibuster doesnt stop the vote......ultimately right? explain to me please.

[rman]

8. What i do know is that filibuster has been used with success in the past,

both by Dems and Repubs.

[seabeyond]

9. i think i need the facts on filibuster. a lot of people expect demand

a miracle from filibuster and i dont think that is factual information. sounding to me like a lot of people are setting themselves up for disappointment with the filibuster only to blame the dems when ultimately the dems dont have the vote, (nothing to do with their spine) and alito gets in because people like you and me really dont have the facts on the filibuster. and then we bash the dems that have nothing to do with their courage once again, when ultimately the blame goes to the american people that voted in all these repugs. kinda how america works, we the people create.

[rman]

11. I don't think anyone expects a miracle, other then

Dems making a stand on principals.
Success is not guaranteed, but it hardly ever is.

[seabeyond]

12. for the 100's of posts i have read i disagree....... no one expects

dems stand on principle all the time. in the last year they have a damn good record of standing up for principle. but regardless, what i read recently on filibuster, not only is it not guaranteed to be success in stopping alito, not probable, but i am seeing it is not likely to change the outcome out all. i like to know what the odds are. i like to know what our end result is that we are willing to walk out of our party for. draw the lines to our dems.

thanks for the info. i will have to read up on this.

now i am all for our dem filibustering. i like listening to our dems speak. they are above and beyond the repugs and anytime i listen to them, i get to hear real intelligence coming out of congress. i like to keep perspective cemented in reality though

[John Q. Citizen]

13. If at least 60 Senators vote for cloture, then debate is cut off and a

floor vote happens. If not then a vote never takes place. It's as simple as that.

Bolton was stopped by a filibuster, but put in with a recess appointment.

Other judicial appointments by this administration have been stopped by the filibuster.

Senate rules require 2/3 vote (67 votes) of the Senate to change Senate rules

The nuclear option is that Repubs claim a two thirds vote is "unconstitutional" and unilaterally declare it takes only a majority vote to change the rules.

So they have to violate the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate.

This goes against all precedent.

google Rules of the US Senate and you will find them.

[seabeyond]

14. cool stuff thanks. i love du cause of all the people in the know. more

help me out. so need 41 to filibuster. cant do anything without 41. filibuster itself is people talking and not shutting up so cant go into vote? they need 60 votes to stop the filibuster. which they wouldnt have if 41 are participating in filibuster. i understand the nuclear option.

how long do they have to filibuster for the vote to be stopped? this part isnt clear to me. how does it stop the vote

yes they were success with bolton, thanks for reminder, i didnt know it was a filibuster though.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. They don't actually have to keep talking. They have to have 41 votes

to keep a floor vote from taking place.

Debate is considered open as long as it's not closed. They can move on to other business and go have lunch or fly home to see their kid graduate, etc, but until 60 or more votes are cast for cloture, the debate is still open and a floor vote can't take place.

[seabeyond]

16. i see. you explained it just perfectly. thank you for taking the time

n/t

[still_one]

10. this is the litmus test for me

and whether the democratic party is worth damn or not

For the past six years they have rubber stamped everything this administration has done. It is time they do their job, and start doing what is right for the country