supermajority

Nor does the US Constitution endorse the idea that a supermajority is required to end debate in the US Senate.

Durbin (D, D Majority) vs. Durbin (D, R Majority) on filibusters. | RedState 2010

The idea that the ‘progressive’ agenda will be in jeopardy if the Dems lose their supermajority is farcical.

Matthew Yglesias » Coakley 2010

Heck, if Democrats can use reconciliation, the Republican 41-vote supermajority is meaningless!

Think Progress » ThinkFast: March 3, 2010 2010

It might be beneficial to change the rules regarding filibuster so that a simple majority rather than a supermajority is enough to break one … but eliminating it completely is definitely not a good idea and anyone who thinks it would be is not thinking about what this could very easily mean in the long run.

Think Progress » New poll finds more Americans in favor of eliminating the filibuster. 2010

He won't even tells us what Democratic Member out of our 60-vote supermajority is threatening to stand with Republican's to hold the public option hostage!

Archive 2009-10-01 2009

The now-routine requirement that a supermajority is necessary is at variance with what the Constitution sets as a norm.

Matthew Yglesias » The Strange Case for the Filibuster 2009

Rumors on this page seem to indicate that getting rid of the supermajority is well on its way.

Sound Politics: The song remains the same 2007

The 60% supermajority is unfair and harder for rural areas than urban areas to pass.

Sound Politics: "Sales tax bill could make your online purchases cost more" 2007

Kilgore has returned his opinion, which holds that the supermajority is not necessary, because, he writes, “public highways belong entirely to the public at large.”

Kilgore: Majority May Sell McIntire Land at cvillenews.com 2004

Kilgore has returned his opinion, which holds that the supermajority is not necessary, because, he writes, “public highways belong entirely to the public at large.”

2004 April archive at cvillenews.com 2004