Underlying that is that the *filibuster* is not meant to be used the way Republicans are abusing it.
Not only how they're using it on nearly everything when it's supposed to be rare, but how it's supposed to'extend debate', not totally block a bill from a majority vote permanently.
The way it's 'supposed to work' is a *majority* vote, eve if after extended debte, NOT the 60 you say.
Craig, that is just pure fiction.
Historically, the minimum vote to pass legislation in the Senate has been higher.
It's never in the history of the Senate been just a *majority* vote, unless briefly at the outset. I've heard in the 1700's (IIRC) that it took even more than 67 votes to get something passed.
In 1913 we had 48 states IIRC. Then it took less than 20 senators to stop a bill:
Another change that occurred during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson was the limitation of the filibuster through the cloture vote. The filibuster was first used in the early Republic, but was seldom seen during most of the 19th century. It was limited as a response to the filibuster of the arming of merchant ships in World War I. At that time, the public, the House, the great majority of the Senate, and the president wanted merchant ships armed, but less than 20 Senators, led by William Jennings Bryan fought to keep US ships unarmed. Wilson denounced the group as a "group of willful men".
That caused the birth of the cloture rule, where a 2/3's vote could overcome an objection. I.e., instead of a few senators opposing/stopping a bill in now took at least 1/3 of the Senate.
So, historically it was not a *majority* vote, in fact even fewer Senators could stop legislation.
Fern
Facebook
Twitter