In response to:

Report: Reid Short on Votes for 'Filibuster Reform'

Jagdriver Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 3:18 PM
Go back and read the Constitution, it simply says majority but does not state a number. During the debate of the framing of the Constitution 2/3 of the members was considered too onerous but a simple plurality (51) was considered too few and could lead to abuse. Therefore no number was set just the word majority was left and it was left to the Senate to make it part of it's rules. What do the Senate rules say is a number for a quorum?

An important update to this report from last week -- it appears that Harry Reid is struggling to cobble together the requisite 51 votes to nuke long-standing minority prerogatives in the Senate:

Democrats don’t have the 51 votes they need in the Senate to change filibuster rules that could make it harder for the GOP minority to wield power in the upper chamber. Lawmakers leading the charge acknowledge they remain short, but express optimism they’ll hit their goal. “I haven’t counted 51 just yet, but we’re working,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading...