URGENT - Federal Highway Trust Fund out of money!!

[Scott5114]

The basis for filibustering is not in the Constitution, actually, but actually in the Senate Rules, which can be dispelled by 2/3rds vote of the Senate.

[yanksfan6129]

Besides the point, again, because it wasn't a filibuster. Meanwhile, this evening a deal was reached, and a vote was had at around 9:15 (which I watched on C-SPAN). It passed 78-19 or 79-18, I honestly forget which. The fact that 1 man can attempt to block the will of the majority...a pretty big majority, too...is insane.

[hbelkins]

Besides the point, again, because it wasn't a filibuster. Meanwhile, this evening a deal was reached, and a vote was had at around 9:15 (which I watched on C-SPAN). It passed 78-19 or 79-18, I honestly forget which. The fact that 1 man can attempt to block the will of the majority...a pretty big majority, too...is insane.

Everyone is focusing on the politics and the policies, but myself, I think the process is at fault here.

• You have the bizarre and byzantine rules of the Senate which permit something like this to happen.
• The Senate's tendencies to group a lot of unrelated things together, which this did. Why should unemployment be connected to highway funding, and highway funding to copyright laws for carrying local channels on satellite TV, and satellite TV to Medicaid reimbursements for doctors, and so on?
• The Senate's penchant to wait until the last minute to act on things. Everyone knew this was on the horizon but yet they wait until time is almost out before acting.

I'm not defending Bunning here. I see his point but at the same time, I ceased supporting him about three years ago over something he did here in Kentucky. But at the same time I'm not faulting him, either. He took advantage of a flawed process to get his point across.

[bulldog1979]

The Senate's Rules have some odd provisions of parliamentary procedure, and even stranger customs that aren't in the rules. In this case, they were seeking to take a short cut, and pass the measure by Unanimous Consent. Usually this is done with non-controversial stuff, and this bill should have been non-controversial. They don't even have to have a full quorum of senators on the floor under UC rules, since if no one objects to the lack of a quorum, a quorum is assumed. In this case, Bunning objected, meaning it wasn't unanimous anymore, and the whole process ground to a halt. One news story I read said that they went this route because it was shorter than the traditional method. They didn't need to get the quorum, they didn't need to invoke Cloture (which takes 3/5, not 2/3, or 60 votes) to stop a potential filibuster. Instead of being able to pass the bill in a matter of hours after it hit the floor for a final vote, it was stalled for a week. Some shortcut.

[US71]

I'm not defending Bunning here. I see his point but at the same time, I ceased supporting him about three years ago over something he did here in Kentucky. But at the same time I'm not faulting him, either. He took advantage of a flawed process to get his point across.

What point is that? That he's a jerk?