We don't need no stinkin' confusions!

Related Link » Here we go again: Obama promises open health care debate
“President Obama yesterday told an enthusiastic crowd that he again wants transparent health care negotiations now that Scott Brown holds a filibuster-busting vote in the Senate.” [emphasis added]
— THE DAILY CALLER, February 7, 2010

It is clear what the writer implied. But he expressed just the opposite of his implication. He did this, I suspect, because it sounds "clever". But as the saying goes in northern New Mexico, "Not even, bro." Scott "41" Brown's vote doesn't bust the potential Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

With rare exception (i.e., using the so-called nuclear option), legislation requires a super-majority of 60 votes for passage in the Senate. This is because fewer than 60 votes would be insufficient for cloture (the motion aimed at bringing debate to an end). Before Brown's election, the Democrat Caucus comprised 60 Senators, just enough to bust a Republican filibuster.

Brown's election brings the Republican Caucus to a filibuster-guaranteeing 41 Senators. That is why he chose "41" as his new nickname.

"Filibuster-guaranteeing" is not as clever-sounding as "filibuster-busting"; but accuracy is more important in serious discussion than pseudo-cleverness. I know it's a minor point. But with so much confusion about the legislative process in Congress, which everyone knows is the opposite of progress, we don't need no more stinkin' confusions.

Post #1,120 We don't need no stinkin' confusions!