Replies

I don't understand what the harm would be in calling for a cloture vote. Why not make the RAT senators go on the record as supporting the filibuster?

I don't see why calling for a cloture vote does any more for establishing a precedent than the RATs having this filibuster in the first place.

OK, I've read through all the posts and can't see where this question is answered. Rush goes on and on about it, but never explains how holding a cloture vote sets precedent, just that it takes 60 votes, super majority, yada...yada...yada.

Went to the US Senate Glossary page and found this...

"cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes."

So I remain confused. I can see where obtaining cloture closes debate and moves on to a vote, but I don't see how cloture failure closes the debate. So cloture fails, doesn't the debate rage on? Is there some sort of Senate courtesy that failing cloture the debate is halted and Senators move on to new business? I'm missing the rules around what happens after a cloture vote is called and fails. Not the courtesy, the rule.

I've not heard Rush or anyone address this. PhiKapMom, you seem on top of all this, Can you explain?

You are right. A failed cloture vote would only shut down the Estrada issue if the Republican leadership decides to shut it down. They would be perfectly within their rights to continue that discussion, which would mean continuing the filibuster.

I have repeatedly seen the argument made that having a cloture vote would set the precedent that 60 votes in the Senate are needed to confirm a judge. I do not understand that argument. I think the precedent has already been set, by the DemocRATs insisting on continuing the debate. And I think it is conceding the point to the Democrats by dropping the issue that would consolidate that precedent. It would even do so without having forced the RAT senators to go on the record as supporting the filibuster.