Will the GOP reverse the "Nuclear Option" when it gets a majority?

[kallend 2,175]

Comments welcome.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

A new battle ground has been laid
The dems will bitch when their bad decision is used against them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

Nope. That was always the point. Whichever party was in the majority always knew that the minority party would come back into power eventually and stick it to them as badly as they stuck it to the other party.

They could have made some adjustments without going full-on nuclear. I liked the idea of preserving the filibuster but requiring the people doing it to actually keep talking the entire time. Make 'em put their... mouth... where their mouth is. It being enough to just SAY you were going to filibuster made it far to easy to grind things to a halt.

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[muff528 3]

If (after this brazen move, and if they ever somehow luck out and regain power, which I seriously doubt) ...IF the Senate Repubs are foolish enough to reverse it, they would be shown to be bigger tools and maroons than I thought. But, my guess is that, if by some stroke of pure dumb luck they do gain a majority, they will reverse it to show to the people what a bunch of conciliatory idiots they are, thinking that will buy them love and admiration. I doubt we will ever know.

[lawrocket 3]

rushmc

A new battle ground has been laid
The dems will bitch when their bad decision is used against them

Yep. The Dems filibustered the hell out of Bush nominees. And back then the hypocritical GOP championed the nuclear option. But - the wimpy GOP leadership just didn't pull the trigger on it. See "Gang of 14."

So the Democrats are proven hypocrites. They bitched like hell when the threat of the nuclear option was used.

Of course, this is another of the situations where the Rule that enabled pain-free filibutering is what caused this in the first place. Throughout history, filibuters were rare. Why? Because under the rules, a filibuster stopped all senate business. No other bills moved. No advice and consent. No nominations. Nothing. Shit just stopped until the filibuster was over or ended via cloture.

Obviously, one or more senators stopping everything for a filibuster was a major risk. Thus, the senators had to either compromise, forget it or filibuster.

In the 70s, Byrd changed the rules for dual tracking. Meaning that if a senator wanted to filibuster, everything else went on. The filibustered action stopped but nothing else. It took away the nasty consequences of filibuster. Filibuster became a sideshow as a result. And it lef to further polarization because the opposing sides could just do shit at will.

If dual tracking was eliminated, it would amount to a either: (a) a Senate shutdown: or (b) the Senators playing nice unless it's enough for them to stake their careers on the move.

Threatening filibuster has been easy. So instead of removing the rule that encourages that bullshit the Senate leadership has now decided to get rid of a couple hundred years of precedent and eliminate filibuster for most things.

It's just like Congress to do this stuff. Make a rule that causes a worse problem. Then, instead of just eliminating the dumb ass rule, they keep the rule and do something worse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

FlyingRhenquest

Nope. That was always the point. Whichever party was in the majority always knew that the minority party would come back into power eventually and stick it to them as badly as they stuck it to the other party.

They could have made some adjustments without going full-on nuclear. I liked the idea of preserving the filibuster but requiring the people doing it to actually keep talking the entire time. Make 'em put their... mouth... where their mouth is. It being enough to just SAY you were going to filibuster made it far to easy to grind things to a halt.

I thought that was exactly what they were doing; just ditching the "procedural filibuster" while maintaining the "talking filibuster."

Anybody have a definitive on this?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[regulator 0]

I'm just happy you think the GOP will get the majority again.

[Boomerdog 0]

The sun don't shine on the same dog's @$$ all the time. Harry Reid can enjoy this now. Remember this...payback is a b!tch and payback is coming.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

I thought that was exactly what they were doing; just ditching the "procedural filibuster" while maintaining the "talking filibuster."

Anybody have a definitive on this?

It doesn't do that. The rule preserves the 60 vote requirement for cloture for Supreme COurt nominees and some limited other things. But it eliminates filibuster on just about everything else.

What is holding up so many things is not an actual filibuster. They don't even need to filibuster. Just the threat is enough. So while no filibusters are really happening, the threat alone prevents them.

So the new rules say that filibuster can't stop most things. Simple majority is all needed to confirm political appointees, judicial officials, etc. Speaking filibusters would be useless because no need for augmented vote counts for cloture.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,175]

regulator

I'm just happy you think the GOP will get the majority again.

What goes around comes around. Once the GOP rids itself of its loony Tea Party wing it will return to power.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***I'm just happy you think the GOP will get the majority again.

What goes around comes around. Once the GOP rids itself of its loony Tea Party wing it will return to power.



I love it when you post this crap!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

So the new rules say that filibuster can't stop most things. Simple majority is all needed to confirm political appointees, judicial officials, etc. Speaking filibusters would be useless because no need for augmented vote counts for cloture.

You say "most things", but my understanding is that this rule change applies only to executive appointments other than supreme court nominees. It does not apply to legislation, for example. Only to filling positions such as judgeships, ambassadors, or very senior bureaucrats needed to actually make things work. It seems inappropriate to me that either party should be able to paralyze whole departments, or mess with diplomatic relations with other countries, just to blackmail the government over some completely unrelated matter. What is wrong with having a discussion of the merits of the nominee, and then actually voting? If enough people don't like the nominee, she/he won't be confirmed. But the opponents should have to actually make their case (if there is even a case to be made), not just threaten some "filibuster" when all they have to offer is a bad rendition of "cat in a hat".

In the meantime if you don't like a law, the old rules still apply, or at least that's how I understand it. Am I wrong?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wayneflorida 0]

rushmc

A new battle ground has been laid
The dems will bitch when their bad decision is used against them

When the Dems lose the majority they will cry, and cry how unfair the rule change is now, and with the help of the news media playing it up, the GOP will cave and change the rule back.

[rehmwa 2]

wayneflorida

***A new battle ground has been laid
The dems will bitch when their bad decision is used against them

When the Dems lose the majority they will cry, and cry how unfair the rule change is now, and with the help of the news media playing it up, the GOP will cave and change the rule back.

it's really simple, the Dems SHOULD have changed the rule to "Republicans cannot filibuster" then the issue isn't a problem at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,600]

Of course they'll regret it. Just as the Republicans would have had they exercised it. We're talking about people who like power, getting a new way to exercise it.

And thanks, lawrocket, for posting the research of how it got this way. I was going to look it up, but it's all there

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[muff528 3]

wmw999

Of course they'll regret it. Just as the Republicans would have had they exercised it. ......

Wendy P.

Right now, given the fact that the Dems did it anyway, I'd just about bet the Repubs regret not doing it when they had the chance. Soviet-style consolidation of power is becoming more and more brazen and blatant.

[DanG 1]

It was even worse. Under the old rules, a Senator could write a anonymous note to a collegue saying he objected to a nominee. The nomination was then put on "secret hold". Not only did Senators not have to fillibuster, they didn't even have to say why they objected, or even who was objecting.

That's not democracy, it's a Star Chamber.

I think this change should have been made long ago.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

Comments welcome.

In the lame duck session, Reid will use the nuclear option to reverse himself so that they won't have the option.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,175]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

So the new rules say that filibuster can't stop most things. Simple majority is all needed to confirm political appointees, judicial officials, etc. Speaking filibusters would be useless because no need for augmented vote counts for cloture.

You say "most things", but my understanding is that this rule change applies only to executive appointments other than supreme court nominees. It does not apply to legislation, for example. Only to filling positions such as judgeships, ambassadors, or very senior bureaucrats needed to actually make things work.
...

Am I wrong?

Don

That was how it was reported on NPR and the WSJ. I believe you are correct.

Of course, lawrocket may be using his own definition of "most things".

From the WSJ:

What is the nuclear option?

The “nuclear option” refers to a move by the majority party in Senate — in this case the Democrats — to change the Senate rules to allow most executive branch and judicial nominations to be approved with a simple majority – 51 votes — rather than the 60 votes now required. Under longstanding rules, the minority party has been able to block a nomination with just 41 votes, commonly called a filibuster.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I think you're correct. It's the nominations. So let's say that the next GOP President wants to appoint Sarah Palin as a Ninth Circuit justice and has a bare majority in the Senate who supports it. Here's a nice robe, Justice Palin!

Here's another question: if the GOP takes the Senate in next year's election, will the Democrats change the Rule back and create other procedural hurdles to changing it again?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

See my mea culpa above

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

I think you're correct. It's the nominations. So let's say that the next GOP President wants to appoint Sarah Palin as a Ninth Circuit justice and has a bare majority in the Senate who supports it. Here's a nice robe, Justice Palin!

Well, the fundamental issue is how can you write a rule that says you need a stronger vote than 50% + 1 to confirm someone in one of these positions where they do have a lot of power, yet at the same time don't create a mechanism to sabotage the whole working of government? If politicians could just find it in themselves to put their own power aside and actually attend to the issue at hand, we wouldn't even need any such rules. As a matter of principle I dislike the practice of using totally unrelated matters to drive a personal agenda, whether it be holding up nominations to force kangaroo-court hearings on Bengazi, or the practice of attaching completely unrelated spending amendments to popular or essential bills. I think 60% would be reasonable, as part of a system where nominees actually have to come up for a vote in a reasonable amount of time. I would think 3 months, for example, would be adequate to investigate a nominees history, present the argument for and against, and vote. I also think the vote should be secret, to get away from block voting by one party or another or both.

Quote

Here's another question: if the GOP takes the Senate in next year's election, will the Democrats change the Rule back and create other procedural hurdles to changing it again?

Perhaps. But then the GOP would just change it to whatever they want. Anyway, with the White House still in Democratic hands for another two years, what would be the point? If the GOP takes the Senate they would have 50% + 1 vote, and they could go back to their policy of blocking everything Obama does whatever the rule may be. It would be a different matter if a Republican was in the White House, then the Democrats might want the 60% rule back so they could block the President's nominees with only 40% + 1.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

I think 60% would be reasonable, as part of a system where nominees actually have to come up for a vote in a reasonable amount of time. I would think 3 months, for example, would be adequate to investigate a nominees history, present the argument for and against, and vote. I also think the vote should be secret, to get away from block voting by one party or another or both.

A deadline is appropriate, though like with the courts I think if both parties agreed to defer, it would be fine.

But I have a problem with secret votes- how would voters know what their Member did on their behalf?

[lawrocket 3]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

I think you're correct. It's the nominations. So let's say that the next GOP President wants to appoint Sarah Palin as a Ninth Circuit justice and has a bare majority in the Senate who supports it. Here's a nice robe, Justice Palin!

Well, the fundamental issue is how can you write a rule that says you need a stronger vote than 50% + 1 to confirm someone in one of these positions where they do have a lot of power, yet at the same time don't create a mechanism to sabotage the whole working of government?

The whole point for me would be to return government back to a point where a minority of the Senate must decide whether the objection to the President's appointment of the Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education is worth shutting down Senate business to duke it out. As of now, the threat of a filibuster just keeps it empty with no consequence.

[Reply]If politicians could just find it in themselves to put their own power aside and actually attend to the issue at hand, we wouldn't even need any such rules.

[DaVinci 0]

I think it is a terrible idea and didn't support it when the R's talked about doing it.

But now that it is done, while I wish it would be undone, I think the R's will use it if they ever get back into power and the D's will cry about it.