POL: Senate votes no to extending parts of Patroit Act

[Galaxy]

Glad to see the Patroit Act's expiring parts to get voted down to be extended by the Senate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm a bit fuzzy on something here, but I'm sure someone that'll hit the thread can clear up the point for me -- the way the first articles on this are written, "not able to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a threatened filibuster " gave me pause -- if that's what this vote was about, then why not allow the measure to proceed & force the filibuster?

This just seems like surrendering to a threat, not to an actual action. What part of the Senate rules am I overlooking here that somehow makes not forcing the filibuster a good play?

[QuikSand]

I confess that the details of the Act, and how it contrasts with the laws in place prior to the Act, have eluded me. I care about these issues, but I am frequently presented with arguments that convinc me that the popular coverage of this topic has been rather lacking, and I have failed to become more learned.

I'm glad to see the Senate concerned about civil liberties in these processes, even without knowing the details. I hope there is a reasonable balance to be struck, and a step like this may be a necessary step toward that goal.

[Galaxy]

I'm a bit fuzzy on something here, but I'm sure someone that'll hit the thread can clear up the point for me -- the way the first articles on this are written, "not able to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a threatened filibuster " gave me pause -- if that's what this vote was about, then why not allow the measure to proceed & force the filibuster?

This just seems like surrendering to a threat, not to an actual action. What part of the Senate rules am I overlooking here that somehow makes not forcing the filibuster a good play?


That's that what I heard after hearing a more in-depth story of on another channel. Now I am alittle confused. The vote was 52-47 I believe, and they needed 60 votes.

[QuikSand]

I'm a bit fuzzy on something here, but I'm sure someone that'll hit the thread can clear up the point for me -- the way the first articles on this are written, "not able to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a threatened filibuster " gave me pause -- if that's what this vote was about, then why not allow the measure to proceed & force the filibuster?

This just seems like surrendering to a threat, not to an actual action. What part of the Senate rules am I overlooking here that somehow makes not forcing the filibuster a good play?

Threatened filibusters are far, far more common than actual ones. For a variety of reasons.

Usually, in my experience (admittedly more at the state level, but with the same principles) it's because the vocal minority that is able to filibuster has fairly good talking points with which to do so -- and the majority group decides that actually allowing the filibuster just sheds more light onto the issue at hand, and there's uncertainty over who would come out looking better as a result (or worse, there is little uncertainty that it would flatter the objecting minority).

Beats me if that's the thinking in this case, but I am sure it is often the explanation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Threatened filibusters are far, far more common than actual ones.

Yep, and I guess in part that's what I'm really questioning as much as the specifics of this particular situation.

Even more curious to me, specifically with this one, is an article I read earlier this morning (which appears to have been bumped by the updated story) that indicated the primary reason for GOP leaders to refuse a three-month extension was in order to put those opponents on the record as blocking the renewal. If that's the case, then it seemed logical that you could get them more on-the-record with a filibuster than with just about anything else.

[flere-imsaho]

The 52-47 vote this morning was for "cloture" on the bill, which, unless I misunderstand, basically means an end to discussion and a move to an overall vote on the bill. The "discussion" in question, of course, is also the filibuster. So yes, there are now 47 senators on record as basically being ready to let the bill die by filibuster. Just because the filibuster hadn't actually started yet is just a technicality.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm a bit fuzzy on something here, but I'm sure someone that'll hit the thread can clear up the point for me -- the way the first articles on this are written, "not able to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a threatened filibuster " gave me pause -- if that's what this vote was about, then why not allow the measure to proceed & force the filibuster?

This just seems like surrendering to a threat, not to an actual action. What part of the Senate rules am I overlooking here that somehow makes not forcing the filibuster a good play?
The end of this article speaks somewhat to this concern. Also, I think I remember hearing that the side being filibustered needs to keep enough senators in there to make sure that they don't get outvoted on certain issues. Something about the side with the floor being able to call a vote at any time and if there is not enough opposition there, the vote will get passed. But I can't find the details of that.

In this case, QS may have the best interpretation here. This is an issue where I think that the Dems play better than they do on a lot of issues. If this becomes a filibuster, then all of a sudden, the story in the news does not become the peaceful elections in Iraq and the "war on Christmas." It becomes how the Democrats, after a long hiatus, finally stand for something again--and that something is keeping the government from spying on you.

Politically, I don't think that the Republicans want to take the chance that this wakes up the Democratic Party and portrays them as a viable alternative with some life left after all.


Anyway, the article . . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2078519/

While a filibuster would seem to be more taxing on the side doing the talking, that isn't necessarily the case. The filibusterers need only one person in the Senate chamber at any one time, prattling away. The other side must make sure a quorum—a majority of all senators—is on hand, a constitutional requirement for the Senate to conduct business. If there's no quorum after a senator has demanded a quorum call, the Senate must adjourn, giving those leading the filibuster time to go home, sleep, and delay things even more. To ensure a quorum during the rancorous civil rights filibusters, cots were set up in Senate anterooms, and majority senators presented themselves in bathrobes during early-morning quorum calls.

Those seeking a quorum can even demand that the Senate's sergeant at arms arrest senators who aren't present and drag them into the Senate chamber, a measure that has led to absent senators playing hide-and-seek with police officers around Capitol Hill. As recently as 1988, officers physically carried Sen. Robert Packwood onto the Senate floor at the behest of then-Majority Leader Byrd.

Filibustering was rare until the late 1800s. It then became steadily more common, leading to reform in 1917 when the Senate passed Rule XXII, the procedure for invoking "cloture," or closure. According to the original Rule XXII, a vote by two-thirds of the Senate could kill a filibuster, a process first successfully used in 1919 to ensure a vote on the Treaty of Versailles. An amendment in 1975 reduced to 60 the number of senators necessary to halt a filibuster. In practical terms, therefore, a filibuster today is possible only if at least 41 senators support it.

Today, the threat of a filibuster often replaces the genuine article. Senators have grown accustomed to warning they will stage a filibuster and then watching the Senate move on to other business, secure that they'll never actually have to pull an all-nighter. According to Sen. Byrd, it's a "casual, gentlemanly, good-guy filibuster. … Everybody goes home and gets a good night's sleep, and everybody protects everybody else."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Politically, I don't think that the Republicans want to take the chance that this wakes up the Democratic Party and portrays them as a viable alternative with some life left after all.

If we're so far down the tubes that opposing such a critically important & neccessary measure as the Patriot Act portrays the Dems as "viable" ... well, fuck it, let it expire because we're doomed as a viable nation anyway.

And no, that's not the first time I've reached this conclusion by any means, just the latest. The only thing I don't really understand is why I periodically delude myself into believing otherwise.

[Flasch186]

If we're so far down the tubes that opposing such a critically important & neccessary measure as the Patriot Act portrays the Dems as "viable" ... well, fuck it, let it expire because we're doomed as a viable nation anyway.

And no, that's not the first time I've reached this conclusion by any means, just the latest. The only thing I don't really understand is why I periodically delude myself into believing otherwise.

Long live a dictatorship with the Republicans in charge!!! hoo-rah!! Or am I misunderstanding your stance this time, as compared to every other time you root for this outcome?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Long live a dictatorship with the Republicans in charge!!! hoo-rah!! Or am I misunderstanding your stance this time, as compared to every other time you root for this outcome?

Well, let's see here ...

1) I don't believe the Dems are capable of leading starving dogs to fresh meat, much less a nation.
2) If a Dem says walks through the door, soaking wet, carrying an umbrella, and says it's raining outside, I look out the window.
3) In terms of viable political parties in the U.S., there's two, and points 1 & 2 eliminate 1 of those, so the only remaining choice would be ... yep.
4) {double checks list of "Greatest threats to an America fit to live in" ...
finds "Democratic Party" in 40 pt. bold-face, all-caps, underlined, red font at the top of the list}. Check.

Yeah Flasch, I'd say you pretty much covered it.

[Flasch186]

what do i win??

[JonInMiddleGA]

what do i win??

A copy of NetDetective.

:D

[Warhammer]

That is the problem with America today. When you live in a two party system, both parties must be functional. I feel the Republicans today are shadows of what they were in the 80s. The Dems, let's just say that they are marginalizing themselves more and more. Much of this is their pandering to their fringe, but what frightens me is their fringe is anti-modern.

They don't want more oil drilling in the US. They don't want nuclear power plants. They don't want wars for oil. If you're not going to let us do anything to alleviate our dependence upon foreign resources, what do you want us to do?

Simple, develop other means of power.

OK, let's see, we're flush with natural gas deposits. But we can't tap them due to environmental concerns. We have plenty of uranium. But we can't make any more nuclear power plants because we can't dispose of the waste anywhere, and what if we have a meltdown! (*gasp*)

We are told to build alternative source power plants. That is fine, however, is it going to provide cheaper power than what we already get? No. How do we get to that point, by exploiting the resources we already have access to!

Those on the left who are not anti-electricity, tend to be anti-American. Not that they would tell you this, but all of the world's ills are due to the US. The Middle East is a quagmire because we support Israel. We have to support Arab countries. We send more in aid to Egypt than we do to Israel. We need to stop supporting foreign dictators. We topple Saddam, but now we can't spill our blood in doing so. We need to pull our boys back from Iraq. We aren't the world's policeman But, we need to stop Iran and N. Korea from developing nukes. Everyone hates us because we poke our noses in everyone's business. Yet, why aren't we doing more to help the tsunami victims in SE Asia?

Some people, for whatever reason, choose to always be against whatever the ruling party does. Or, there are people on both sides of the aisle that refuse to do the right thing if the wrong party is in power. We need more candidates that are looking out for what is good for America, not what is good for the Republicans or Democrats. There are some people that genuinely think that the US is evil, but many of these people have not traveled abroad. Like it or not, the US is the richest, most successful nation in the history of the planet. Only people from the US have set foot on a celestial being other than the Earth. No nation in the history of the world has done more for other nations, have liberated more peoples, or has given more monetary and technical aid, than the United States. There is a reason why people look to us when there is something wrong in the world, we are one of the few countries with the ability, and the only one with the will to set things right.

Then you have the union nuts. Unions have a place, they fight to improve the lot of their workers, however, do we really need them now? Companies are chasing labor dollars that are much lower overseas than they are domestically. Is that helping your constituency if they are losing their jobs? Do we really need to have 4 weeks of vacation every year? But, better not take away our 15 minute bathroom breaks every hour or we'll really get pissed! Oh yeah, if a company lets go of someone, we need to file a lawsuit because some one was being discriminated against.

If the Democratic party would actually tell some of these groups to quit being such whack-jobs and move back toward the center I might actually have someone else to cast a vote for. Heck, we need more Mark Warners and Phil Bredesens, we need fewer Nancy Pelosis and Ted Kennedies.