TPMDC
« Bond: Long-Term Mass Transit Investment "Not Stimulative" | Home | Why Daschle Quit and Who's Next »

When Falling Short of 60 Doesn't Mean A Filibuster

A reader writes in to note my description of a Senate transportation amendment as falling "two votes short" today, suggesting that it had in fact been filibustered by the GOP.

The Republicans certainly did block the amendment, but it wasn't a filibuster -- what occurred was a motion to waive budgetary rules to allow for more new spending that isn't offset by cuts. Such a motion is more of a fiscal box-checking than a political obstruction, though it has the same effect in practice. Sixty votes are needed to waive budgetary rules, the same margin needed to break a filibuster.

But If no budgetary motion had been made on the amendment, it likely would have been deemed "non-germane" according to Senate rules -- and fallen short in the end. Such is the mind-numbing tradition of parliamentary procedure.


Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address