Harry Reid ready to go nuclear

[Landslide Lyndon]

About time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/19/harry-reid-is-set-to-go-nuclear/

Senator Harry Reid appears set to go nuclear — before Thanksgiving.

With Senate Republicans blocking a third Obama nomination to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide tells me Reid is now all but certain to move to change the Senate rules by simple majority — doing away with the filibuster on executive and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court – as early as this week.

At a presser today, Reid told reporters he was taking another look at rules reform, but didn’t give a timeline. The senior leadership aide goes further, saying it’s hard to envision circumstances under which Reid doesn’t act.

“Reid has become personally invested in the idea that Dems have no choice other than to change the rules if the Senate is going to remain a viable and functioning institution,” the aide says. That’s a long journey from where Reid was only 10 months ago, when he agreed to a toothless filibuster reform deal out of a real reluctance to change the rules by simple majority. Asked to explain the evolution, the aide said: “It’s been a long process. But this is the only thing we can do to keep the Senate performing its basic duties.”

Asked if Reid would drop the threat to go nuclear if Republicans green-lighted one or two of Obama’s judicial nominations, the aide said: “I don’t think that’s going to fly.”

[Link]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

[Skill and Chance]

This is insane for Democrats.  The filibuster is much more valuable to them over the long term.  Republicans have a natural senate majority based on state leans, but it's conversely much easier for Democrats to get to 60+ seats.  Republicans haven't been filibuster-proof since before the New Deal, while Democrats have had huge majorities 4 times since then (1930's, mid 1960's, post-Watergate and 2008-10).

Do Democrats really want to risk having the entire Obama presidency and most of the New Deal repealed in 2017 just so that they can confirm a few appointees now?

[Skill and Chance]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

[You kip if you want to...]

Do Democrats really want to risk having the entire Obama presidency and most of the New Deal repealed in 2017 just so that they can confirm a few appointees now?

Why would Hillary do that?

[Brittain33]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

I think we have to be.

[ElectionsGuy]

Go ahead, Reid, but it will bite you in the ass in the long run.

[Skill and Chance]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

I think we have to be.

Then should everything be majoritarian?  Should we be able to amend the Constitution by a 50.01%/49.99% national referendum?  What if that vote was for repeal of the 14th Amendment?  Majority rule has to end somewhere or else we have no rights at all.

[Beet]

I am wary of this precisely for the reasons Skill and Chance mentioned. Ideally, there would be some kind of gang of 14 style compromise. The important thing is that the traditional balance between the majority and minority in the Senate be maintained.

[Brittain33]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

I think we have to be.

Then should everything be majoritarian?  Should we be able to amend the Constitution by a 50.01%/49.99% national referendum?  What if that vote was for repeal of the 14th Amendment?  Majority rule has to end somewhere or else we have no rights at all.

I'm not seeing the conflict here. That's why the constitution is hard to amend, that wouldn't change. But having a supermajority requirement for literally everything above naming a post office is absurd.

[Link]

I am wary of this precisely for the reasons Skill and Chance mentioned. Ideally, there would be some kind of gang of 14 style compromise. The important thing is that the traditional balance between the majority and minority in the Senate be maintained.

It really doesn't matter at this stage.  Democrats have constantly been trying to be the reasonable people in the room and the Republicans keep doing extremists crap.  Even if Reid doesn't go nuclear what guarantee does he have that the Republicans won't go nuclear when they get the chance?  It's probably better to preserve your first strike advantage and be done with it.  The Republicans have already stolen the House of Representatives.  What do you think their next move will be?

[SteveRogers]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

I think we have to be.

Then should everything be majoritarian?  Should we be able to amend the Constitution by a 50.01%/49.99% national referendum?  What if that vote was for repeal of the 14th Amendment?  Majority rule has to end somewhere or else we have no rights at all.

And that's why the Constitution explicitly establishes that certain things such as constitutional amendments, treaties, and impeachment require a supermajority because those things should be especially hard to enact. Ordinary legislation, however, was never intended to require a supermajority, and for most of the country's history it didn't. The same goes for appointments. Going back to simple majority rule with regard to presidential nominations will not somehow lead to oppression by the majority.

[Lief 🗽]

As Link alluded to, the very first thing Republicans will do when they win a majority in the Senate is end the filibuster. Democrats should end it now while they can still gain an advantage.

[Skill and Chance]

As Link alluded to, the very first thing Republicans will do when they win a majority in the Senate is end the filibuster. Democrats should end it now while they can still gain an advantage.

It's a huge risk for them too, though.  If they do it, they know the next Dem trifecta will pass single payer and a carbon tax.  Now they might think that won't happen until 2040 so they don't care, but it would mean they are never more than 4 years away from Sweden, which would probably terrify establishment R's.

[Maxwell]

Ugh, just put the real filibuster back in place instead.

Basically. No more "vote" filibusters.

[7,052,770]

As Link alluded to, the very first thing Republicans will do when they win a majority in the Senate is end the filibuster. Democrats should end it now while they can still gain an advantage.

This exactly.  The filibuster is dead the day Republicans take over the Senate, at least under current conditions.  They'll never give us the right to filibuster, so why should we let them have it?

[badgate]

Democrats should "go nuclear," and if we lose control of the Senate, during the lame duck session we will reinstate the rules, putting the blame on Republicans when they take control and "go nuclear" themselves.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As Link alluded to, the very first thing Republicans will do when they win a majority in the Senate is end the filibuster. Democrats should end it now while they can still gain an advantage.

This exactly.  The filibuster is dead the day Republicans take over the Senate, at least under current conditions.  They'll never give us the right to filibuster, so why should we let them have it?

Why would they get rid of it? They use it a lot more than Democrats. That asymmetric warfare is working out well for them.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Some people seem to have reading comprehension problems. The article states explicitly that Reid will abolish the filibuster only for presidential appointments, not legislation.

[Ogre Mage]

I knew all three DC Circuit nominees (Millett, Pillard and Wilkins) would be filibustered.  We absolutely should go nuclear unless Senate Republicans cave on the nominees.  The GOP is refusing to confirm any DC Circuit nominees regardless of qualifications and bipartisan support.  I think people on this site comprehend how critical these judicial appointments are.

George W. Bush appointed four judges to the DC Circuit.  Obama has gotten one, Sri Srinivasan.  Bush was able to get political hacks like Brett Kavanaugh (he was Ken Starr's flunkie during the Monica Lewinsky investigation) and extremists like Janice Rogers Brown appointed to the DC Circuit because he and Senate Republicans fought tooth and nail when Senate Democrats blocked them.  Democrats need to do the same for our nominees who are actually highly qualified and not extreme.  I sent messages to my senators encouraging them to do whatever it takes to get Millett, Pillard and Wilkins confirmed, including the nuclear option if necessary.

[badgate]

^I should send a strongly worded message to my Senators arguing to let the nominees see a final vote. That always works with them

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, what happened to that awesome deal Reid supposedly had earlier this year that was obviously a total joke?

[The Ex-Factor]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

Back when California was a legislative dystopia, one of the arguments liberals made against this was that philosophically we should be invested in the idea of good governance, at least more so than the Republicans are. The scorched earth tactics Republicans have been using now have enabled them to create the perception (and reality) that Washington is broken and government sucks, which plays right into their platform/ideology.

In other words it's still worth it to change the rules to ensure majoritarian rule, as it will make government work better and makes it clearer which party is responsible for policy. Republicans really want to privatize Social Security? Let them try to pass that with 51 votes and see how it plays electorally.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

Back when California was a legislative dystopia, one of the arguments liberals made against this was that philosophically we should be invested in the idea of good governance, at least more so than the Republicans are. The scorched earth tactics Republicans have been using now have enabled them to create the perception (and reality) that Washington is broken and government sucks, which plays right into their platform/ideology.

In other words it's still worth it to change the rules to ensure majoritarian rule, as it will make government work better and makes it clearer which party is responsible for policy. Republicans really want to privatize Social Security? Let them try to pass that with 51 votes and see how it plays electorally.

In California, Republicans were hardcore abusing that rule that required a 2/3rds majority for a state budget to pass. They would mostly refuse to even negotiate, except for the most moderate members would extract massive concessions in exchange.  Note that it didn't really matter that Arnold was a Republican, since he wasn't going to bother vetoing something that had a 2/3rds majority.

Anyways, the voters passed a Proposition to reduce that requirement to a simple majority AND gave Democrats a 2/3rds majority. Things have been going much more smoothly as a result.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

With 2016 lineup, Reid likes his chances to hold onto Senate and with Schumer's woeing Clinton to run, should we do lose control, top recruits for IL , WI and pa should give us enough seats to restablsh control, time is right to nuke filibuster.

Makes him stronger Majority Leader in his own reelection, can't portray him as weak, should Brian Sandoval run against him. He as well as Bennett are vulnerable, too.