This is the def. of filibuster from the US Senate website: Informal term
for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other
matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural
motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
It seems to me that you can filibuster a bill, use "procedural motions"
or "other delaying or obstructive actions" even if was voted on and
approved by a simple majority.
But I am not expert and we need one!!!
CHAD
Marty Hart-Landsberg wrote:
But I am not sure that what happened is in accord with what Carl says
below, that the democrats "could have passed the bill but not have
defeated the filibuster."
According to the papers the bill did pass, with 52 votes. Doesnt a
filibuster take place to stop a vote? Isnt it the case that once a
filibuster starts, which means talking to stop a vote, that you need
60 votes to force a vote on the motion. But the papers claim that
there was a vote on the measure and it passed.
I dont think that the Republicans actually launched a filibuster--so
when does the threat become real--
Marty
Carl Dassbach wrote:
This is not weird, at least not as I understand it. I think the key
issue was concessions from the UAW. Repugnicans wanted concessions
from the UAW in the form of accepting a wage and benefit packages
similar to those found in Japanese transplants. Democrits did not
want to make these concessions. So, they could have passed the bill
but they could not have defeated the filibuster so the bill would
have stalled. Bush, in my opinion, doesn't care one way or the
other. He is a lame duck and is willing to do anything to look
"good" in his last few weeks in office.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
