Exactly what I was wondering on the drive home last night.
You always needed 60 votes to get cloture in the Senate.
Once the bill is on the floor a simple majority can pass it.
The term is cloture. What it means is there are not enough votes to filibuster the bill. Looked at another way there is enough support for the bill in the senate to bring the bill to the floor for debate and vote. This is a senate rule intended to provide the minority a means to stop legislation they strongly disagree with from getting to the floor. It has nothing to do with veto override, though it could be considered an indication of voting strength.
Not really. Reid has held up popular bills that actually have more than 60 potential votes. He has done the exact opposite by nuking the filibuster for judges. Used to need 60 to advance a judgeship to a full vote, he made it 50.
Reid’s Rules of Order for the Senate have given the Senate majority leader virtual dictatorial power over the Senate. Change of the 2/3rds rule to 3/5ths invoking cloture or consent to Judicial/Cabinet nominations was pre-Reid. Reid further eroded minority input by changing consent to 1/2 plus one of Senators present for lower level nominations, often referenced as “the nuclear option”.
Veto overrides yet remain at the 2/3rds requirement. However, neither consent nor veto can be achieved until cloture stops debate. SCOTUS ruled against BHO’s direct recess appointments despite Senate declared sessions to the contrary.
There are terminological subtleties at work here. When a Republican minority insists on extended debate and refuses to permit a vote, it is "filibustering" and "obstructionist." When a democrat minority refuses to permit a vote, the press merely asserts that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill.
It takes 60 to invoke “cloture” and stop the debate so it can go to a simple majority vote (51).
This is a scam both parties use to say they were “for something” before “they voted against it”.