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.
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?