Blocking Senate vote

How is Harry Reid able to block a Senate vote for a bill that passed the house?

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-audit-the-fed-senate-harry-reid-video-2012-7

Is this really being done by one man?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
How is Harry Reid able to block a Senate vote for a bill that passed the house?

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-audit-the-fed-senate-harry-reid-video-2012-7

Is this really being done by one man?

Maybe he just decided to rule by edict like Obama. I mean, who's gonna stop them? You? 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Maybe he just decided to rule by edict like Obama. I mean, who's gonna stop them? You? 😛

The remedy is a political one, and generally has involved backroom deals. Another political remedy is for his constituents to vote him out of office, or for his party colleagues in the Senate to remove him a majority leader. Yet, what historically has happend over the last 200+ years is that deals are brokered and the majority leader gets something for allowing the bill to go to the floor for a vote.

The Senate was very much set up as an anti-majoritarian body. You see that from the start with its make-up of two senators per state which is very disproportionate in terms of representative population. An just as striking, a single senator can block any vote unless a super majority of 60 votes can be secured to override the filibuster. And the single person of majority leader is god in the Senate, and controls pretty much everything in the Senate.

When a Senate majority leader abuses his power (which opinions differ on what is abuse), it is a political question and not a legal or even procedural one. The majority party in the Senate really sets everything, and there is very little protections in the Senate for the minority party (is that a majority feature of the body?)

There is so many Democrat Senate seats up for play in 2012, but I am really hoping that the right-wing GOP nominees like Akin and other freaks are going to help the Democrats keep the Senate. It is so important to control the Senate (and the House).

I was thinking that with the Ryan pick, that the elderly Americans who were key in the GOP 2010 success might now go back Democrat in 2012 and help the Democrats take the House. That would be sweet with a Democrat Senate and House, and a second term for the President. Indeed, would have more flexibility than in 2009 right after the Bush financial devastation and years of Republican rule.

Originally posted by moon1969
The remedy is a political one, and generally has involved backroom deals. Another political remedy is for his constituents to vote him out of office, or for his party colleagues in the Senate to remove him a majority leader. Yet, what historically has happend over the last 200+ years is that deals are brokered and the majority leader gets something for al ...[text shortened]... lexibility than in 2009 right after the Bush financial devastation and years of Republican rule.

Harry Reid had just 9% approval rating before becoming elected once again. This tells me that democracy is dead. Such power is unchecked and can do as it pleases. In fact, Congress has had an approval rating well under 20% for years, but the same old farts keep getting in don't they?

Originally posted by whodey
Harry Reid had just 9% approval rating before becoming elected once again. This tells me that democracy is dead.

What percentage of the vote elected him?

Originally posted by whodey
Harry Reid had just 9% approval rating before becoming elected once again. This tells me that democracy is dead. Such power is unchecked and can do as it pleases. In fact, Congress has had an approval rating well under 20% for years, but the same old farts keep getting in don't they?

That might have something to do with people like you blocking electoral reform because it's not "what the Founding Fathers would've wanted".

Originally posted by moon1969
An just as striking, a single senator can block any vote unless a super majority of 60 votes can be secured to override the filibuster. And the single person of majority leader is god in the Senate, and controls pretty much everything in the Senate.

Who decides to put it to a vote to get the super majority of 60 votes and override the filibuster?

Originally posted by whodey
Harry Reid had just 9% approval rating before becoming elected once again. This tells me that democracy is dead. Such power is unchecked and can do as it pleases. In fact, Congress has had an approval rating well under 20% for years, but the same old farts keep getting in don't they?

Voters hate Congress but they love their Senator and Representative.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Who decides to put it to a vote to get the super majority of 60 votes and override the filibuster?

By that point the bill is already on the floor, but just requiring 60 votes to pass. I am no expert, just my understanding. Unfortunately, that 60 votes has become the norm now with the Republicans blocking legislation, judicial nominees, etc. Now need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. It was intended to be rare, and to be used on that rare occasion to appease a single Senator or single State. But now, the Republicans use this archaic rule as standard operating procedure in the role of the party of No. It would be nice for the Democrats to get 60 in the Senate this November. Maybe the likes of Akin running, and a strong turnout for the President will help make that happen.

Originally posted by moon1969
By that point the bill is already on the floor, but just requiring 60 votes to pass. I am no expert, just my understanding. Unfortunately, that 60 votes has become the norm now with the Republicans blocking legislation, judicial nominees, etc. Now need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. It was intended to be rare, and to be used on that rare occasi ...[text shortened]... be the likes of Akin running, and a strong turnout for the President will help make that happen.

That doesn't make sense in this case though. The audit the fed bill was not brought to a vote in the first place (edit: in the Senate) so nobody knows if the bill could get 60 votes until it happens.

Where is the possibility to get 60 votes?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That doesn't make sense in this case though. The audit the fed bill was not brought to a vote in the first place (edit: in the Senate) so nobody knows if the bill could get 60 votes until it happens.

Where is the possibility to get 60 votes?

I doubt that bill would require 60 votes, as it seems unlikely the Republicans (or the Democrats) would filibuster that bill. Also, highly unlikely the President would veto the bill if passed.

Reid decided the bill not a good idea and just kept the bill from going to the floor for a simple majority vote. Edit: There are timing and priority considerations by the majority leader when deciding whether to have a vote (and floor debate) on a bill in a time-constrained limited Senate.

Originally posted by moon1969
I doubt that bill would require 60 votes, as it seems unlikely the Republicans (or the Democrats) would filibuster that bill. Also, highly unlikely the President would veto the bill if passed.

Reid decided the bill not a good idea and just kept the bill from going to the floor for a simple majority vote. Edit: There are timing and priority considerati ...[text shortened]... ciding whether to have a vote (and floor debate) on a bill in a time-constrained limited Senate.

Harry Reid was all for an audit of the fed reserve before and now he is against it. Don't you think at the very least he should explain his flip flopping?

How can his efforts to curb democracy be overcome in this case? How is it that democracy can be trampled in this way without public outrage?

Originally posted by moon1969
Voters hate Congress but they love their Senator and Representative.

In other words, they find ways to secure their position and become career politicians. Meanwhile, they collectively become the most hated legislative body on the planet.

State rights anyone?

Originally posted by FMF
What percentage of the vote elected him?

There were various voter irregularities, such as the unions running the polling booths. Some of them were found to be tampered with so that it did not matter who you voted for, the vote was always cast for Dirty Harry.

I am torn really. I don't know whether to buy into the notion that the American voter is that far gone or decide if the election process is just too corrupt or a combination of the two. Either way we are all screwed.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Harry Reid was all for an audit of the fed reserve before and now he is against it. Don't you think at the very least he should explain his flip flopping?

How can his efforts to curb democracy be overcome in this case? How is it that democracy can be trampled in this way without public outrage?

How many audits of the Fed are necessary? You were crowing about the "first ever" audit done a few months ago under Dodd-Frank and that law has provisions for yearly ones. Why is this "audit the Fed" bill even necessary?

You're being disingenuous anyway; you don't want the Fed audited - you want it abolished.