Marty Hart-Landsberg <[email protected]> wondered:
> [Is it correct] that the democrats in the senate
> gave up the effort because they didnt have the
> 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster.
They didn't have the votes needed to prevent a (credibly?) threatened
filabuster and, more to the point in Real Politick terms, the majority
(which, not incidentally, did not include Sen. Marjority Leader Reid and
also did not include abstainers Biden and Kerry) didn't want to test
whether a filabuster actually would result.
> [W]as there . . .a determination by the democrats that
> there would not be 60 votes for the bill so there was no
> vote.
Essentially: Yes.
> According to the paper The measure was defeated 52-35
> on Thursday night in the Senate when it fell short of the 60
> votes it needed. So, it seems like the measure passed.
> * * * According to the papers the bill did pass, with 52
> votes.
You are conflating "the measure" that was voted on with "the [substantive]
bill [re. an interim loan, etc."
IOW, the the effect of the vote was as you note, a rejection as a practical
measure of the substantive bill, "the measure" actually voted on was not
the so-called "bail-out" bill itself and, instead, a Senate Rule 22 vote on
cloture, i.e.., whether to cut off debate and bring the substantive measure
to the floor for a vote.
> * * * how did this really work
Very messily, if at all . . . .
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
