Will Harry Reid Go Nuclear?

[Leviathan]

[uebermann]

[Dylan]

McConnell is trying to say the filibuster of nominees is about "extending the debate" for lifetime appointees.

Bullshit. Several senators have explicitly stated they are using the nominees as hostages to extract unrelated concessions.

In any event, dems will regret this in a few years, but it's the right thing to do for the country.

[The dane]

I don't really like the new Senate rules, but I also can't come up with any way to prevent the Republican abuse without limiting reasonable minority dissent.

[Leviathan]

[John Galt]

he went nuclear... which was a bad move. worse, it requires 67 votes to change the rules. but apparently they could change the rules about changing the rules with a simple majority

[John Galt]

[John Galt]

harry reid holds the 10th longest fillibuster in senate history. for a judicial nominee -- no, not just that. for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._ ... troversies. you know, exactly what he's going nuclear about.

[John Galt]

1806 -- senate rules state that debate cannot be ended by force -- a vote to "move the previous question" is redundant: they were already working on the previous question and debating its merits. so no need for such shenanigans, they would debate, like the gentlemen they are.

1917 -- cloture started by democrats under the prodding of comrade wilson. required 2/3rds present members

1949 -- cloture modified by democrats to 2/3rds of total members, not those present

1959 -- cloture modified by democrats to 2/3rds pressent members, not total (make up your goddamn minds already)

1975 -- cloture lowered by democrats to 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds/ two thirds were still required for rule changes.

2013 -- cloture abolished by democrats for some things. did so nby first abolishing cloture for rule changes.

IM PRETTY SURE THE REPTILES WOULD DO IT ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER BECAUSE OF ALL THE INSTANCES WHERE THE REPTILES DID ANYTHING TO CLOTURE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SENATE

[Professor]

Both Democrats and Republicans have filibustered, and abused that power. Both Democrats and Republicans have threatened to use the nuclear option to dismantle one of the bedrocks of the Senate (namely, that a simple majority is not allowed to run roughshod over the minority). However, in the past, it's been all threats, with eventual compromises leading to a solution.

This time, Reid has actually done it.

Like those crazy protester people who picketed outside military funerals, I don't always agree with Republicans stances on using a filibuster to block a nominee for some other purpose. But, I agree with their right to do so.

The Senate is more and more becoming nothing more than a House whose members serve 3x longer terms. For over 200 years, the House was supposed to be the "heat" of the Congressional branch. With members being elected every 2 years, and simple majorities ruling the day, it was expected that they would do things fast and furious, then try and undo them years later. The Senate was SUPPOSED to be a roadblock. It was supposed to temper the impetuousness of the House. That's why they were nominated by state legislatures, not elected by the people. That's why they served 6 year terms, not 2.

And, that's why they had supermajority things like the filibuster. It was to ensure that the party (group of people, since parties weren't around in 1700s) with a bare majority could not abuse that power to silence the minority. After all, these Republican Senators represent over 100 million people.