Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

eomer

(3,845 posts)

14. And how did the final bill pass in the Senate, do you know?

Reply to EdwardKingSolomon (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 05:54 AM

Sep 2012

It did not have 60 votes so a filibuster would have killed it. But it couldn't be filibustered because Democrats used the budget reconciliation process.

In other words, there is already a way to get around the filibuster in many cases and it has been used numerous times over the last several decades; much of the major legislation over that period was done that way. But Democrats used it only for Obamacare and education finance reform in the two years that they held both houses (2009/2010). Democrats should not go to the nuclear option. They should just take advantage of the existing rules that have always been available (and stop with the "bipartisan" nonsense).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The "nuclear option" for the Senate after 2012. [View all] EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 OP

If the Republicans win the senate and hold the house are you okay with them doing the same? dkf Sep 2012 #1

He still has a veto. Paulie Sep 2012 #2

Wouldnt the GOP still need a 2/3 majority to override a veto? DJ13 Sep 2012 #3

Do I take it that you are against the nuclear option? nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #5

I think it's dangerous...you can't expect we are the only ones who will use it. dkf Sep 2012 #13

If we dont use it doesnt for a minute guarantee they wont. They have proved they have no rhett o rick Sep 2012 #17

They need to bring that tradition back Aerows Sep 2012 #27

Yes I agree. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #28

The only thing to fear EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #21

Well said. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #29

I want a fillibuster to BE a fillibuster. Not this BS phone it in. yourout Sep 2012 #4

I think this is what the Democrats are looking at as a solution. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #6

Horrible idea. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #7

The country wasn't on the verge of collapse at that time EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #8

Also EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #9

No ... it's time has come. kurt_cagle Sep 2012 #10

Obama's Health care reform was "trivial"? (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #11

It is one of the very few pieces of Legislation that got through, and the result: EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #12

And how did the final bill pass in the Senate, do you know? eomer Sep 2012 #14

Budget reconciliation was only used to pass modifications to the bill bornskeptic Sep 2012 #15

No, reconciliation does not require 60 votes at any point and can be done more than once per year. eomer Sep 2012 #16

That's all well and good but the Repukes are misusing the rule. It needs to change. rhett o rick Sep 2012 #18

True, but for some reason some Democrats don't seem to want it known... eomer Sep 2012 #19

I fully understand. Like good cop bad cop. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #22

I vote for direct democracy over representative democracy. nt Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #20

If the citizens wont work hard enough to get representative democracy to work rhett o rick Sep 2012 #23

Special Interests EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #24

Good point. yourout Sep 2012 #26

I vote against direct democracy... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #25