No. This is not the case.
While I think Matt is being pedantic, I did make the mistake of saying “single-handedly”.
Precisely
magnet
1970
Cloture requires 60 votes, passage only requires 51. But the new normal seems to be that Senators vote the same way on cloture as they will on final passage. So that’s why “60 votes for cloture, and then 51 votes to pass” has informally turned into “60 votes to pass”.
Most of these negotiations are behind the scenes, so when something is actually being voted on and not passing, it is performative. Congress did very little with Trump in charge and Pelosi controlling the House, so the filibuster hasn’t been much in the news the last couple years other than as a theoretical check on a Dem trifecta. For the exact situation to occur where something has 60 votes for cloture and only 58 votes to pass might be rare, but Senators do vote for cloture on bills they then vote against. For example, just this past year, H.R. 1957 got cloture 75/23 and passed 73/25, the Gardner amendment (1617) went the other way - 65 votes for cloture, 73 votes to pass.
Obviously, the calculation is different if your vote affects the eventual passage of the bill, but one thing that I think the GOP especially will be wary of is too much obvious filibustering. If Schumer tries to run over them they will of course use their power, but if he wants to build a case to force Manchin and others to cave on the filibuster, he could hold a bunch of high-profile cloture votes that fail. I doubt he will lead with that approach, but I do think that for important bills he will be able to lobby for cloture votes from moderate institutionalists as a way to show that the filibuster itself isn’t unreasonable.
CraigM
1972
Yup. There’s formal, and informal power. It might be literally true that McConnell, on his own, can prevent something from coming to a vote. He doesn’t have the literal dictatorial power on what the legislative agenda is.
But it is missing the forest for the trees to state it so flatly. He might not, by rule, have such power. But by informal process and procedure he absolutely did.
magnet
1973
Can you find any significant bill in the last few years that passed with less than 60 Senate votes (outside of reconciliation)?
I can’t, and it’s no coincidence that all of those bills would have survived a filibuster. The Senate now proceeds by assuming that everything will be filibustered, and in the interests of time a bill with less than 60 votes won’t even be brought to a vote.
The filibuster hasn’t been much in the news, it’s true, but not because it’s a “theoretical check” or rarely used. Rather, because cloture has been permanently integrated into the legislative process and filibuster threats are not even worth mentioning any more.
Dodd-Frank only had 59 votes.
Right, and if they let it be, then this will continue to be the case. At which point only the nominations and reconciliation will accomplish anything, and all power over legislation will reside in a minority party representing an even smaller minority of the people. But again, the math is different for a party with a trifecta and an actual legislative agenda, especially if modifying the threshold for cloture is on the table and is therefore something to balance when considering your vote. In 2018 there were several failed cloture votes, I expect there to be more over the next two years.
I mean, even if Manchin et al are dead set against eliminating the filibuster, they still might be convinced to change it to a 54 vote threshold or something like that, and to therefore allow a larger portion of the Dems agenda to find the support it needs.
CraigM
1976
Look when your employees clearly hate you, its a sign you perhaps are in the wrong business.
Oh, no, usually think it’s probably them, not me lol.
Padilla, Warnock and Ossoff have been sworn in. Dems take control in the Senate.
I’m not even remotely close to be tired of the winning.
KEEP GOING.
First order of business. Give statehood to DC and in November hold elections for the Senate, one for a six year term and one for four to stagger them. Get two more Democrates in the Senate by next year.
Ok, I know this is a fantasy, but it would be awesome.
Canuck
1981
Can we start the Senate impeachment trial tomorrow?
I will co-sponsor your legislation.
Alstein
1983
Why not give statehood to PR and the Virgin Islands as well? (VI is over the 60k min threshhold)
Maybe even try combining all US overseas territories into one state? This would also solve the issue of American Samoa non-citizenship.
Because the citizens of those places have to clearly want it first. You’ll need a referendum with a clear and unambiguous result, which will take time. And you’re far less likely to get support from Joe Manchin. Whereas DC is a slam dunk, they’ve been demanding it for decades.
I think that this is probably a bad idea. We shouldn’t create impossible-to-govern states.
Basically, McConnell is saying that unless the Dems pledge not to blow up the filibuster, Republicans will filibuster the organizing resolution and deny them committee chairs and control. This is…unity and comity.
JoshL
1988
Elections have consequences! Unless Republicans lose, then, no consequences at all.
