These filibusters... injure the administration of justice and our nation's political culture... As Senate majority leader... I sought to address Democrats' grievances while holding true to the core principle of an up-or-down vote. So far, my colleagues have rejected all efforts at compromise, and continue to insist on a new, 60-vote standard.And Senator "I Object" Bunning:
[Health care reform has been] held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. This unfair tactic is breaking years of Senate tradition...When a filibuster is instituted it takes a three-fifths vote to put a stop to it. The Framers of the Constitution were pretty clear when they required more than a majority to act. For example, they required a two-thirds vote to amend the Constitution. They required a two-thirds vote to convict and remove from office an impeached President or Federal official... The Framers also required a two-thirds vote to approve a treaty. Now, if the Framers meant that a super-majority vote was required [to pass health care reform] then they would have clearly stated so.Oh wait, those are quotes from 2005, when Republicans were in power and trying to put more conservative, activist judges on the Supreme Court. Ooops. My bad.