Senate Majority Quotes

I refuse to do anything that would help Republicans win a Senate seat in New York, and give the Senate majority to the Republicans.

We must return conservatives to the majority in the U.S. Senate.

It doesn't entirely make sense that if 51 senators are from one party, and they can stick together, they can do whatever they want. Especially in this age of blatant, shameless gerrymandering.

As every newspaper reader, liberal activist, or parliamentary junkie knows, the overarching barrier to most of Obama's agenda is the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate. In fact, several of Obama's second term priorities are not ideas in search of a majority - they are majorities in search of an up-or-down vote.

I'm interested in being part of a majority in the Senate.

George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936.

Now the Democrats control the Senate. But the good news is that now the Republicans can admit that Strom Thurmond has been dead since 1988.

The Constitution gives the president the power to appoint, upon the advice and consent of a majority of the Senate, and it plainly does not give a minority of senators any right to interfere with that process.

There is no Senate rule governing the proper uses of the filibuster.

A majority of senators should be able to adopt rules at the beginning of each Congress.

On the House side, typically the party that has the White House loses the majority in the midterms - that's been the historic trend. We want to buck that trend. We want to deliver for President Trump majorities in the House and the Senate so that he can govern.

You can’t solve a problem by throwing money at it, but you can get a Senate majority by throwing money at it.

I honestly thought we wouldn't hold the U.S. Senate. I thought we'd come up short and I didn't think President Donald Trump had a chance of winning. Given my expectations, doubly exciting because I thought we'd come up short on the Senate. We had a lot of exposure. That was really something. But it never occurred to me that he might be able to win as well.

I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate.

I think the Democrats are catering to them, but, you know, in the entire history of the United States of America, there has never been a judge who has been refused a vote when there was a majority of Senators willing to vote for his confirmation, never in history.

The Vice President breaks ties in the Senate. In our 200 years of history there have been about 200 ties broken so you can see what an important job it is.

There was a Republican majority of the Senate, and it tempered the nature of the nominations being made.

The political event of last week is the opposition of [Roscoe] Conkling to the New York appointments. This is a test case. The Senators generally prefer to confirm Merritt and Graham. But many, perhaps a majority, will not oppose Conkling on the question. Senatorial courtesy, the Senatorial prerogative, and the fear of Conkling's vengeance in the future, control them.

Right now, there are nearly 30 jobs bills passed by the House with support from both Republicans and Democrats that are awaiting action in the Democratic-run Senate.

That Republicans now control the Senate means, of course, that they control the confirmation process. Their majority enables them to stop an unacceptable nomination at various points: They can deny the nominee a committee hearing; they can vote the person down in committee; they can refuse to schedule a vote on a nomination sent to the floor; and the full Senate can vote to reject the nomination. The Republicans' majority status also strengthens their negotiating position with the White House, making it more likely that a mutually acceptable candidate will be chosen for a given seat.

Obviously, you cannot do full repeal of Obamacare without a 60-vote bill in the Senate, but you can surely gut the law and give people true healthcare freedom with 51 votes in the Senate.

Now, President Obama has to make a decision. He can either propose a nominee who can win over the majority in the Senate or defer his choice to the voters, who in November will elect a new President and a new Senate, which will be responsible for confirming a nominee who will provide balance to the Supreme Court.

The Democratic line is that the Republican House does nothing but block and oppose. In fact, it has passed hundreds of bills only to have them die upon reaching the desk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He has rendered the Senate inert by simply ensuring that any bill that might present a politically difficult vote for his Democratic colleagues never even comes to the floor.

Anyone who works in the Senate is often in doubt as to the will of the Senate.

In reality, if Democrats truly cared about solutions to our immigration crisis they would have done so long ago - like in 2009, when they controlled the entire federal government and maintained a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.