Harry Reid ready to go nuclear

[Beezer]

Why did the GOP not filibuster the vote on the nuclear option? Or was such a move not possible?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You can't filibuster a rules motion.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems were only blocking nominees to get a GOP judge like OConnor or Kennedy that had no litmus test on abortion. GOP was blocking judges to prevent CRT packing. Two different things.

[Beezer]

You can't filibuster a rules motion.

Thanks.

BTW, is there a brief explanation of why and how the Dems were able to change the Senate rules without a two-thirds majority? I've tried catching up on what's happened this week but I'm still not able to quite get my head around why such a motion could be passed and what the point of having filibuster rules is if they can just be disregarded.

[Link]

Thanks.

BTW, is there a brief explanation of why and how the Dems were able to change the Senate rules without a two-thirds majority? I've tried catching up on what's happened this week but I'm still not able to quite get my head around why such a motion could be passed and what the point of having filibuster rules is if they can just be disregarded.

Well you have to get a majority of the people to agree to disregard it.  You may hate the filibuster in one circumstance but not mind it in a bunch of others.  But once it is gone it is gone.  So you can't just eliminate it and bring it back at will.  There is a pretty good chance Republicans will eliminate the filibuster for supreme court nominations now, just 'cause.  It's a Pandora's box.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lisa Murkowski, King, Lisa Madigan, and Collins will work with the new prez whichever party he or she may be so that there is no Tea party packing in 2017.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lisa Murkowski, King, Lisa Madigan, and Collins will work with the new prez whichever party he or she may be so that there is no Tea party packing in 2017.

LOL, Collins and Murkowski had no problem with Bush's extreme judges.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

On the nuke option, they won't change the rules. But they will insist that they will have to fall on an up or down vote. In a divided control Senate, anything can happen.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Thanks.

BTW, is there a brief explanation of why and how the Dems were able to change the Senate rules without a two-thirds majority? I've tried catching up on what's happened this week but I'm still not able to quite get my head around why such a motion could be passed and what the point of having filibuster rules is if they can just be disregarded.

Well you have to get a majority of the people to agree to disregard it.  You may hate the filibuster in one circumstance but not mind it in a bunch of others.  But once it is gone it is gone.  So you can't just eliminate it and bring it back at will.  There is a pretty good chance Republicans will eliminate the filibuster for supreme court nominations now, just 'cause.  It's a Pandora's box.

IIRC, Richard Nixon ruled, as presiding officer of the senate when he was VP, that rules can be changed by a simple majority.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On the nuke option, they won't change the rules. But they will insist that they will have to fall on an up or down vote. In a divided control Senate, anything can happen.

As opposed to what?

[politicallefty]

GOP was blocking judges to prevent CRT packing.

Filling vacant judgeships is not court packing though. President Obama has only been submitting nominees for seats that have already been established by law. He has not asked Congress to expand the judiciary, which is ultimately what court packing is all about. GWB had four nominees confirmed to the DC Circuit, three of which are still sitting (Roberts having been elevated to SCOTUS). With the nuclear option having been exercised, President Obama will have had four nominees confirmed as well. If Republicans had been able to accept defeat on just the DC Circuit, which was ultimately the result of the 2012 election, I'm sure Republican obstruction on most judicial nominees would've continued through this current Congress.

[krazen1211]

I am in complete agreement with you. If either party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the filibuster should die immediately. If President Hillary Clinton wants to pass single-payer healthcare or if President Chris Christie wants to push through privatization of Social Security and/or Medicare, then so be it. They should and would ultimately be held accountable by the voters. I'm a firm believer that elections have consequences.

It would have been admirable in a way if the Wisconsin Democrats and the liberals had held that belief in 2011.

[krazen1211]

I am in complete agreement with you. If either party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the filibuster should die immediately. If President Hillary Clinton wants to pass single-payer healthcare or if President Chris Christie wants to push through privatization of Social Security and/or Medicare, then so be it. They should and would ultimately be held accountable by the voters. I'm a firm believer that elections have consequences.

It would have been admirable in a way if the Wisconsin Democrats and the liberals had held that belief in 2011.

That can be said about tons of recalls. Its not just unique to those scary white liberal union thugs in Wisconsin.

It is relatively uncommon for legislators to flee a state merely because they loathe the democratic process.

[Miles]

I am in complete agreement with you. If either party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the filibuster should die immediately. If President Hillary Clinton wants to pass single-payer healthcare or if President Chris Christie wants to push through privatization of Social Security and/or Medicare, then so be it. They should and would ultimately be held accountable by the voters. I'm a firm believer that elections have consequences.

It would have been admirable in a way if the Wisconsin Democrats and the liberals had held that belief in 2011.

That can be said about tons of recalls. Its not just unique to those scary white liberal union thugs in Wisconsin.

It is relatively uncommon for legislators to flee a state merely because they loathe the democratic process.

But its not unique to white liberals.

Well, at any rate, I'm glad you're back to attacking politicians instead of slandering the poor and calling them names of animals. I suppose its a step forward for you.

[greenforest32]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/politics/senate-confirms-georgetown-law-professor-to-powerful-appeals-court.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here we go, a bit of nuclear warfare smoothes everything up!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am in complete agreement with you. If either party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the filibuster should die immediately. If President Hillary Clinton wants to pass single-payer healthcare or if President Chris Christie wants to push through privatization of Social Security and/or Medicare, then so be it. They should and would ultimately be held accountable by the voters. I'm a firm believer that elections have consequences.

It would have been admirable in a way if the Wisconsin Democrats and the liberals had held that belief in 2011.

That can be said about tons of recalls. Its not just unique to those scary white liberal union thugs in Wisconsin.

It is relatively uncommon for legislators to flee a state merely because they loathe the democratic process.

But its not unique to white liberals.

Well, at any rate, I'm glad you're back to attacking politicians instead of slandering the poor and calling them names of animals. I suppose its a step forward for you.

I didn't know that Abraham Lincoln himself quorum-busted in his time! I wonder if krazen believes that Lincoln 'loathe[d] the democratic process'. Of course, Lincoln was a very great man and was, of course, the greatest American President, so krazen's answer has, of course, obvious implications for whether or not he is a Real American.

[krazen1211]

I didn't know that Abraham Lincoln himself quorum-busted in his time! I wonder if krazen believes that Lincoln 'loathe[d] the democratic process'. Of course, Lincoln was a very great man and was, of course, the greatest American President, so krazen's answer has, of course, obvious implications for whether or not he is a Real American.

Are you not aware of Lincoln's unilateral suspension of Habeas Corpus and ex Parte Merryman? Of course he hated the democratic process. Not unlike Barry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay, so you're, of course, one of those people. Got it. At least you're being honest about your contempt for the good people of this great land who understand that Lincoln was, of course, a great man and a great leader and that dealing with treason by anti-American, anti-freedom slaveholders, who I like to call the real moochers and parasites of antebellum America, of course sometimes requires ignoring the pronouncements of activist judges like Roger B. Taney.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Okay, so you're, of course, one of those people. Got it. At least you're being honest about your contempt for the good people of this great land who understand that Lincoln was, of course, a great man and a great leader and that dealing with treason by anti-American, anti-freedom slaveholders, who I like to call the real moochers and parasites of antebellum America, of course sometimes requires ignoring the pronouncements of activist judges like Roger B. Taney.

It's not nice Nathan to take advantage of krazey's feeble posting in such a cruel way.

[henster]

If you think this is bad just wait until another retirement in the SCOTUS which could happen sometime next year and that will be one hell of a battle.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you think this is bad just wait until another retirement in the SCOTUS which could happen sometime next year and that will be one hell of a battle.

I really hope Reid is ready to nuke the filibuster for SC nominations as well. The future of America might be forever altered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the way, here's a thread from 2005 when the GOP was discussing the possibility of a limited nuclear trigger.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15986.0

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

If you think this is bad just wait until another retirement in the SCOTUS which could happen sometime next year and that will be one hell of a battle.

It's likely to only be Ginsburg. Scalia and Kennedy will have to be carried out in a bag.

If so, I doubt anyone but the hardcore cons will raise a fuss. It'll be like the Alito nomination.