60 Votes are needed for Cloture

[LSK]

Meaning you cannot move ANYTHING to a final vote without 60 Yeahs.

Now that this little factoid has been posted, carry on with your Senate flames.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. yeah

that is a huge limitation for us. How is it that when the GOP had the senate...almost everything he wanted got a cloture vote???

[LSK]

5. Landrieu, Nelson, Nelson, Lieberman

They had a pretty good majority last congress. I think we only had 43 Dems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. 67 for confiction in an impeachment trial

another little factoid

[wryter2000]

13. Thank you both

I wonder what version of reality some posters are using to make decisions.

[madokie]

16. Thats the number I'm most interested in

[dweller]

3. how many R'pigs are up for re-election next cycle?

just curious.

dp

[LSK]

6. lots

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/Class_II.htm

[WorldResident]

4. Let's go nuclear

:)

[LSK]

7. how? See the OP

:)

[Dr.Phool]

8. I don't think they could.

The way Frist and the repukes worked that procedure out was to appeal for a ruling from Cheney that they could change the rules for judicial appointments.

We just know Deadeye would rule in our favor now.

[pat_k]

9. Failure to accuse = Exoneration = "Accessory After the Fact" War Criminal

Their oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

And don't be so sure that Republican Senators be willing to jump in bed with the War Criminals and vote against removal. The only way to find out who will, or who will not, be willing to defend the indefensible is to force them to declare themselves in a vote. And that means voting out articles of impeachment for the Senate to act on.

The Republicans bent over backwards in their attempt to escape becoming war criminals by forcing the "compromise" in the War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 -- a "compromise" that did nothing but remove the definitions of torture from the bill and hand the job over to the whims of the "the decider." Of course, their attempt to wash their hands of it is still a violation of Geneva, which requires nations that are party to the treaty to enact laws that enforce it (something their War Criminals Protection Act clearly fails to do).

We could see Bush and Cheney forced out overnight as the Republicans scramble to escape having to go on the record. It would be for the "good of the Party" ya know. Keep the White House in Republican hands. Go into the election with a "new face" for the Republican Party.

When principle demands action, you must act. Let the chips fall where they may.

If the so-called "leadership" won't impeach to defend the Constitution, maybe they'll do it for the political benefit. The fight to impeach Bush and Cheney is an unprecedented opportunity to deal with the Democratic Party's Number 1 and Number 2 problems -- i.e., the perception that Democrats are weak and their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. In the fight for impeachment, win or lose, they would demonstrate strength and conviction and to define themselves as the Party of the People's Government and the Constitution (and you don't get much more inspiring than that).

[wryter2000]

14. Failure to convict = exoneration n/t

n/t

[pat_k]

15. No more than a racist jury acquitting a lynch mob -- truth speaks for itself

History is a harsh judge.

They have a choice. The right side of history, or the wrong side.

Impeachment or Impotence

Duty or Complicity

Courage or cowardice

Their oath is an individual oath. Their duty an individual duty. Each and every member submitting to the "off the table" edict is effectively exonerating with their silence. As long as they are silent, Bush and Cheney say "If we were subverting the Constitution, Members of the House would be demanding impeachment. The opposition isn't even objecting. Not only aren't they calling for impeachment, they've taken it off the table."

Bush and Cheney are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. That is their intent. Grab Unconstitutional power, do it willfully and publicly, and challenge Congress "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare."

They are betting on the cowardice of the Democrats.

So far, their winning that bet.

The biggest barrier to impeachment is not the opposition. It is the naysayers in our own ranks.

[cali]

10. I'm well aware of the fact that it take 60 votes for cloture

but that doesn't mean that they can't try. Even though they failed to pass the non-binding resolution, it got Senators in the well, talking about the war for days. And it got in the press day after day. They may not be able to pass anything, but they could keep bringing it up. They chose not to.

[brentspeak]

11. There you go again. Citing facts and employing common sense.

While it's much more fun to rant and rave and make weak accusations against the Democrats.

[Hosnon]

12. Couldn't the Dems refuse to yield the floor...at all...until they got a vote

on the war?

They would face criticism for grinding the Senate to a halt but no other bill could be voted, e.g., defense, appropriations.

[tritsofme]

17. That's usually a tactic of the minority

The GOP would probably be just as glad to not pass any other legislation that has been through Pelosi's House.