A Quote by Steve Kornacki

Republicans have used the filibuster to turn the Senate into a de facto 60-vote body. — © Steve Kornacki
Republicans have used the filibuster to turn the Senate into a de facto 60-vote body.
In theory, the filibuster helps whichever party is in the minority in the Senate. In practice, it is the Republicans who have disproportionately used it to engage in cynical and anti-democratic obstructionism whenever they find themselves in the minority.
That Republicans now control the Senate means, of course, that they control the confirmation process. Their majority enables them to stop an unacceptable nomination at various points: They can deny the nominee a committee hearing; they can vote the person down in committee; they can refuse to schedule a vote on a nomination sent to the floor; and the full Senate can vote to reject the nomination. The Republicans' majority status also strengthens their negotiating position with the White House, making it more likely that a mutually acceptable candidate will be chosen for a given seat.
Obviously, you cannot do full repeal of Obamacare without a 60-vote bill in the Senate, but you can surely gut the law and give people true healthcare freedom with 51 votes in the Senate.
This is a president [Barack Obama] who came into office in 2008 with a big majority in the House and with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Because of his policies and his conduct in office, seven years later, we have our largest majority in the House since 1928, and we have a majority in the Senate and we have 31 of the 60 governorships.
My view of the filibuster is either you've got to lower vote edge or make people really filibuster if they feel that seriously about a piece of legislation.
It used to be in the Senate that if you were filibustering, you stood up, there was a physical dimension to it, that you when you became exhausted, you'd have to leave the floor. That was the idea of the filibuster.
McCain was so passionate and determined, but he was also practical. He understood what a heavy lift it was to get a 60-vote, filibuster-proof margin on something that lawmakers feared would hurt their ability to campaign to keep their jobs.
It used to be in the Senate that if you were filibustering, you stood up. There was a physical dimension to it, that you - when you became exhausted you would have to leave the floor. That was the idea of the filibuster.
If the choice is between universal health care or fixing our broken immigration system or upholding a 60-vote filibuster rule that is nowhere in the Constitution, I'm going to choose actually making progress for the American people.
I refuse to do anything that would help Republicans win a Senate seat in New York, and give the Senate majority to the Republicans.
To be honest, I haven't seen much serious budget planning since the Republicans took control of the House after the 2010 elections and grabbed onto the Senate filibuster. It's not the White House's fault that John Boehner couldn't deliver on a bigger deal.
I want to have a good vote in the Senate so we send the message that the Republicans and the Democrats are together in favor of immigration reform.
The Senate was the equivalent of an aristocracy at the beginning. Senators were not even elected; they were appointed in the early days. Then that changed, and senators did become elected. But the Senate is designed to slow down out-of-control, madcap activity elsewhere in the legislative branch (i.e., in the House), and the 60-vote rule was part of that.
The Democrats are angry, and they're out of their minds. You know, we're seeing in the Senate, the Senate Democrats objecting to every single thing. They're boycotting committee meetings. They're refusing to show up. They're foaming at the mouth, practically. And really, you know, where their anger is directed, it's not at Republicans. Their anger is directed at the American people. They're angry with the voters, how dare you vote in a Republican president, Donald Trump, a Republican Senate, a Republican House.
As every newspaper reader, liberal activist, or parliamentary junkie knows, the overarching barrier to most of Obama's agenda is the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate. In fact, several of Obama's second term priorities are not ideas in search of a majority - they are majorities in search of an up-or-down vote.
When it comes to voting rights, Democrats push voter protection while Republicans shout voter fraud in a crowded polling place. Democrats think anyone who can vote should vote; Republicans think everyone who should vote can vote.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!