Talk:Senate hold

message: We need to add something to the controversy section for the "supporters" of secret holds. But so far I can't find any good references for this, so it's either going to be a POV issue with only one side being mentioned, or else be a "citations needed" issue because I can't find any good links for this. 
I know the basic idea for those in favor of the hold is that it allows the senate to deal with fast-track unanimous-consent issues quickly, without having to wait on other issues which require debate, but I'd like to find a good source for this.
:Thanks for the work on this article.  The best that I can tell, a secret hold serves two purposes: 1) as a type of 'filibuster' in the words of Sen. Feinstein (it was used extensively in the 90s to block judicial candidates) and 2) as a way for a Senator to temporarily review a bill.  I have discussed this in more detail on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 Talk page with a couple of references from statements on the floor of the Senate that support my conclusion.  All controversy tends to lie with the filibuster aspect since it gives more power for a single Senator to block a bill than many people believed existed.--Burzum 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article needs to explain the limitations on the power of each senator to delay Senate business. At the moment the article seems to imply (but I do not believe) that all bills, nominations and other business require unanimous consent to come to a vote, so that a single Senator can block anything forever. If this were so, it is very difficult to understand how anything could ever be approved. So these holds must only be applicable to certain items under certain conditions, and the article should explain what these are.
In the current (Dec. 2009) health-care debate for example, the Senate has at least twice voted to proceed by a vote of 60-39. If secret hold were applicable here, just one Republican Senator could have stalled the whole procedure – why is this not so?
The same question can be asked for nominations. But an 
Associated Press article written last week about Bernanke’s confirmation debate says that “Sanders has placed a 'hold' on the nomination, meaning a super-majority of 60 votes is needed to confirm Bernanke”. This would suggest that a hold (secret or not) requires 40 senators to sustain, not just one, which seems much more believable to me. Or do the holds placed by only one Senator expire after a short time, as Lary Roberts asked above on this discussion page?
Could someone knowledgeable please clarify these points? I hesitate to edit the article myself as I don’t know enough about the rules of US politics. Dirac66 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Holds are like filibusters, they can be defeated through cloture, however, the time required to bring around a cloture vote often allows fewer than 40 senators to block unimportant legislation, when the majority is not willing to force the vote.71.116.85.57 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clear answer, which needs to be explained in the article. I suggest we add your sentence as is, perhaps as a final paragraph to the section on Origin and intent. This would eliminate the misleading impression that the unanimous consent requirement is absolute.  Dirac66 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the limitations?

message: Hi. It's my understanding the the secret hold was not abolished on January 27th, 2011. Please see the test of this New York Times article, which says "A senator will now be required to acknowledge a hold in the Congressional Record within two days of imposing one. If the senator does not do so, the hold would then automatically be attributed to the party leader or another senator who might have initiated the hold at a colleague’s request. The thinking is that senators may be unwilling to accept responsibility for an objection lodged by a colleague, putting pressure on that senator to step forward." The changes have been made are the following: 1.) The secret hold period goes from 6 days to 2 days. 2.) The secret hold will be attributed to party leadership if no one comes forward to take responsibility for it or lift it within the 2 day limit 3.) if the hold is lifted within 48 hours, it will not be attributed to any Senator, making it a secret hold. Additionally, if you look at the text of the resolution that was passed there's nothing in the resolution that prohibits "tag teaming," meaning the bill could still, concievably, be held in secret indefinitely. Thoughts? Fungywah (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Secret Hold Has Not Been Abolished

message: Some time after May 2010 the article Mae West Hold was merged into this article. Its mention has subsequently faded away. A mistake? The Mae West hold is currently referenced at Filibuster and Filibuster in the United States Senate. Katana (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the previous content of the article Mae West Hold: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mae_West_hold&oldid=353762158. Perhaps the specific variety of hold should just be mentioned in the article again and also say "This is also known as Mae West hold because [movie reference]". Katana (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mae West Hold disappeared 

message: We need updates on the 2023 Tuberville holds of military promotions.  Lugevas (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 updates