Why do they need 60 votes in order for the bill to advance to the floor (as opposed to a simple majority)? Is this related to the filibuster, or is it a different set of rules?
Yes, it's the Fillibuster. The Senate, in theory, has no limits at all to the amount of debate on any measure. Any Senator can talk for as long as they want. But they do have to have some way to decide to stop talking and vote, and they do that by invoking cloture. They need 60 Senators to agree that the debate is over, and then they can schedule the actual vote.
The measure still needs 50 votes to pass. But it needs 60 votes to decide to hold that simple, majority vote. Which is kind of backwards.
It gets even more backwards - any Senator at any time can declare a Senate rule is being violated by a filibuster and ask a presiding officer (e.g. another senator, usually committee chairs) to fix the violation by prohibiting filibusters under those circumstances going forward. If that presiding officer disagrees, the Senator can ask for the full chamber to vote on it, and if 50+1 Senators disagree with the presiding officer the new rule regarding filibusters goes into effect.
The Senate is filled with arcane rules from the 1800's that I'm convinced only five people actually understand. They get most of their work done with unanimous consent, because using the actual rules is too hard.
Republicans voting for it thus far:
Collins
Kennedy
Moran
Young
Romney
Tillis
McConnell
(Need 3 more since Bernie voted Nay)
(72 votes cast thus far)
Update: This failed, 58-41
Men and women in Ukraine were counting on you. Nice job aholes.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
He said he still hoped they would agree to debate the border deal, but had lined up a back up plan in consultation with the White House to move the billions in money for Ukraine, Israel and humanitarian assistance for civilians impacted in conflict zones.
The top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially signaled he favored moving the legislation supporting key allies.
He said he took direction from GOP colleagues to work on a border deal, but once the House speaker called it "dead on arrival," it was time to move on.
Many of the same Senate Republicans who insisted they wouldn't back a bill providing more money for Ukraine without changes to the country's asylum system quickly reversed themselves once former President Trump, the likely 2024 presidential nominee, publicly lobbied lawmakers to kill any border deal.
House Speaker Mike Johnson sidestepped a question on whether he would allow a vote on the foreign assistance package if the Senate approved it.
The speaker suffered back-to-back embarrassments on Wednesday, when both a resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Aleyandro Mayorkas and a standalone bill providing $18 billion for Israel both failed.
The original article contains 583 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
As an American Jew, I seriously hope Israel aid is for civilians only. The army can have some fucking toilet paper.
Why do they need 60 votes in order for the bill to advance to the floor (as opposed to a simple majority)? Is this related to the filibuster, or is it a different set of rules?
Yes, it's the Fillibuster. The Senate, in theory, has no limits at all to the amount of debate on any measure. Any Senator can talk for as long as they want. But they do have to have some way to decide to stop talking and vote, and they do that by invoking cloture. They need 60 Senators to agree that the debate is over, and then they can schedule the actual vote.
The measure still needs 50 votes to pass. But it needs 60 votes to decide to hold that simple, majority vote. Which is kind of backwards.
It gets even more backwards - any Senator at any time can declare a Senate rule is being violated by a filibuster and ask a presiding officer (e.g. another senator, usually committee chairs) to fix the violation by prohibiting filibusters under those circumstances going forward. If that presiding officer disagrees, the Senator can ask for the full chamber to vote on it, and if 50+1 Senators disagree with the presiding officer the new rule regarding filibusters goes into effect.
To sum that up in a sentence, "by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule" and kill the filibuster whenever they want.
The Senate is filled with arcane rules from the 1800's that I'm convinced only five people actually understand. They get most of their work done with unanimous consent, because using the actual rules is too hard.
Republicans voting for it thus far: Collins Kennedy Moran Young Romney Tillis McConnell
(Need 3 more since Bernie voted Nay)
(72 votes cast thus far)
Update: This failed, 58-41
Men and women in Ukraine were counting on you. Nice job aholes.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
He said he still hoped they would agree to debate the border deal, but had lined up a back up plan in consultation with the White House to move the billions in money for Ukraine, Israel and humanitarian assistance for civilians impacted in conflict zones.
The top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially signaled he favored moving the legislation supporting key allies.
He said he took direction from GOP colleagues to work on a border deal, but once the House speaker called it "dead on arrival," it was time to move on.
Many of the same Senate Republicans who insisted they wouldn't back a bill providing more money for Ukraine without changes to the country's asylum system quickly reversed themselves once former President Trump, the likely 2024 presidential nominee, publicly lobbied lawmakers to kill any border deal.
House Speaker Mike Johnson sidestepped a question on whether he would allow a vote on the foreign assistance package if the Senate approved it.
The speaker suffered back-to-back embarrassments on Wednesday, when both a resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Aleyandro Mayorkas and a standalone bill providing $18 billion for Israel both failed.
The original article contains 583 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
As an American Jew, I seriously hope Israel aid is for civilians only. The army can have some fucking toilet paper.