Get Rid Of The Archaic 60 Vote Rule In The US Senate

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ ^ | 03/01/2005 | OldSkipper

[old skipper]

Get Rid Of The 60 Vote Rule In The US Senate !

[old skipper]

This is my very first post, so I may not be doing it right. But, be patient with me...I promise to get better.

I am very concerned that we may again see some obstruction by some US Senators in the form of the filibuster rule which requires 60 votes to invoke cloture (stop it).

I am not seeing a good response from Senator Bill Frist's office or Senator Arlen Spector's office, and I have called each of them twice to voice my desire that this archaeic rule be set aside and operate the business of the US Senate in the manner provided by the constitution.

One of the most important points I make in my argument to them for change is that the continuing obstruction that keeps a nomination or a legislative bill from coming to the floor for a vote actually serves to keep my voice from being heard in the US Senate.

From down here in Texas, we hired John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison to go to Washington and vote on my behalf. If they are prevented from doing so, in effect, my vote is kept from being heard. And, I think there has to be something constitutionally wrong with that.

Neither side should participate in it. It is wrong for Democrats, and it is wrong for Republicans. Hold hearings on a bill, or nomineee, vote it out for an established period of debate on the floor of the Senate, then vote on it. If you have 51 votes, you win. If you don't, you lose. That is what the constitution provides for. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, each morning, I make it a point to call at least two US Senators from the directory I furnished with this link, telling them (Republcan and Democrat alike) how I feel about it.

I actually believe the Senate will get more accomplished by getting rid of those rules. If FReepers feel the same way, it may provide a pretty good chorus if each FReeper adopted the same practice of calling 2 Senators daily. Maybe just then, we can persuade this august body to get off their butts and do something really constructive.

[PhiKapMom]

Great Post and I agree 100% -- my Oklahoma Senators are on board with what you are saying. Nominees should never require more than 51 votes on either side. Having 60 votes to approve a nominee is just flat out wrong!

[Jeff Gordon]

Nice post for a first timer.

[stevem]

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think the 60 vote rule is necessarily a bad one with regard to changes in national policy. Filibusters are as old as the Senate, I guess.

Filibusters ought not apply to Presidential appointments. Also, senators that want to filibuster should be forced to do so i.e. put their mouths where their sentiments are.

[Admin Moderator]

Welcome to FR. This post is considered a 'vanity' as it is not from a news source, but is your opinion. For that reason I have removed it from the sidebars you chose and added it to the vanity topic.

[RoseofTexas]

In order to abolish the 60 vote quota's you need backbone and the pubs don't have it yet! After seeing the report on the Judicial nominees on Special Report over the filibuster, I'm afraid the pubs are too damn scared of the RATS. To let that loony KLU KLUX KLAN bastard insinuate that the republicans are Nazis and letting him get away with the insult has me extremely upset! Don't know what to think anymore. Can't see the pubs taming the RATS any time soon, nope not even if they have the majority! Hoping I'm wrong though!

[xcamel]

Most people don't even know that the "supermajority" rule is anti-constitutional.

My idea is to (a) require physical presence, (b) follow constitutional law (rules) for a 51 vote majority, and (c) inpose "suture" on the pie-holes of any senator who oposses it.

[MplsSteve]

Decent post.

Normally, the 60 vote filibuster rule has not bothered me. It was previously used in the best interests of compromise and agreement.

However, the Dems are using the filibuster tactic solely for obstructive purposes that have nothing to do with "advise and consent".

[PackardClipper]

If it weren't for the need for 60 votes, we'd have had Hillary Care for 10 years now.

[penowa]

"If it weren't for the need of 60 votes, we'd have had Hillary Care for 10 years now.

Incorrect. There was not even ONE Democrat vote for Hillary Care. It was not fillibustered by the Republicans or anyone else. It was just so bad that even the Dummiecrats like Kennedy and Kerry knew they would be thrown out of office at the next opportunity if they voted for it.

[miskie]

The filibuster does have some value, but it seems as of late the Democrats are using it solely for obstruction. perhaps instead of eliminating the filibuster option, some groundwork can be laid where a sixty vote majority may be required.

I think that Presidential nominations is not one of those places. This causes other problems by keeping important jobs from being filled. A Bill however is a different story.

[PackardClipper]

The way I remember it, it was withdrawn because it had nowhere near 60. But, it had a potential 50+. The Dems controlled all in '94. The threat of a fillibuster killed it. There was never a vote.

[Hessian]

I concur. Don't really see the fillibuster as a bad thing - AS LONG AS WE MAKE THEM GO THROUGH WITH THEIR THREATS. I would absolutely RELISH the opportunity to see the Dems roll in the cots, read the phone book and shut down the Federal gov't. Don't see how in the world it would be a negative thing for us.