Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Dragonfli » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Dragonfli's Journal
Posted by Dragonfli in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Dec 13th 2008, 12:33 PM
The U.S. Senate adopted a cloture rule in 1917 that requires a two-thirds vote of that body to end a filibuster. It is the only method to force the end of debate, it assumes the participants will continue debating otherwise.

You do not appear to know the definition of the word filibuster, I can help you with this.

Filibuster
The term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. It works to prevent a vote because the Senate's rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only when debate ends naturally. The word comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom. When a Senator filibusters, he/she holds the chamber hostage until it meets his/her conditions.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/glossary.htm

What you may infer from my comments regarding Reid has nothing to do with the reality of my comments. I "implied" nothing of the sort (incorrect or otherwise).

I simply stated the obvious - that Harry Reid has made a habit of folding to the threat only of a filibuster and then moving directly to a cloture vote without bothering to test the will of the minority in an environment where debate may end naturally via lack of will on the part of the obstructionists to debate for days or weeks the "virtues" of positions that would be unpalatable to the voting public if the bluff were called. (a habit as yet unbroken, so I consider it a rule of his leadership)
You see, due to your lack of understanding of the definition of a filibuster, you are under the mistaken impression the republicans are actually filibustering, they are not, they have not.
Reid has not required them to, he requires it would seem only that they threaten to.

What do I expect from Reid? To require them to filibuster rather than merely threaten to in order to get their way. If it is so easy that a mere threat produces the same results, why they may do something silly like merely threaten to filibuster over 90 times or something and just get their way, no one would expect him to be that ineffective of a leader would they? Of course not! err maybe you, and possibly Harry Reid.

spelling edit
Discuss (1 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStar
Star
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.