Should the GOP gain a Senate majority in the next elections I can easily imagine Reid’s final act as Majority Leader is to have the outgoing Dem Senate majority to vote the 60-vote rule back into place
It wouldn’t matter, the new GOP majority would put it back to 51 as soon as it took the gavel.
The pro-filibuster Dems only voted for this because they were convinced that they were going to have a 51-vote Senate as soon as the Republicans got the majority, so why not go ahead now?
So the Democrats preemptively destroy an important rule of the Senate because the Republicans would have done it first? Only problem with that statement – the Demcrats did it not the Republicans.
Project much, Jim?
I don’t think it’s just projection — the GOP was pushing for this very change not long ago.
Unlike the Senate Dems I mentioned, I support the change not because the Republicans were going to do it anyway, but because it’s the way things should be. 51 Senators should be able confirm nominees (and pass bills).
Meanwhile have you caught the media’s projection? “We only did it because it’s what republicans would do.”
And there’s Jim up there, echoing you, Ken, only seriously.
The good news, I suppose, is the GOP has now been handed the means to repeal Obamacare by simple majority… and while they are at it, kill a lot of other Democrat “accomplishments”. So what if Reid’s move doesn’t yet include legislation… there’s no putting the genie back on the bottle now.
When Republicans were discussing the “nuclear option” back in 2005 or so, I was adamantly against it. The filibuster can be a pain in the neck, but it’s a mechanism that stops the majority from doing whatever nutty thing it wants, and it thus helps both sides (Majorities tend to flip back and forth over time). I also thought that Republicans in favor were being stupidly short-sighted, because majorities don’t last.
The same reasoning, of course, applies to the Democrats.
Question; can the senate similarly change its rules so a change in the leadership is no longer a simple majority vote, but requires 60? Reid could thus stay in power even if Republicans pick up half a dozen or more seats. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he did it…
As Reid just showed, 51 Senators can change the rules of the Senate at any time. So any rule that says you need more than a majority to do X is vulnerable, because a mere majority can change the rule and vote themselves the power to do X.
I’m not sure your change makes sense — I believe that the Senate elects a new majority leader at the beginning of each session, rather than changing leaders (i.e. I don’t think there is a majority leader on the first day of the session until one is elected). But even if Reid made such a change, the incoming GOP majority could immediately change the rule.
“The good news, I suppose, is the GOP has now been handed the means to repeal Obamacare by simple majority”
As I understand it..not directly. This nuke seems to deal only with sub-SCOTUS judicial appointment – not general voting in the Senate.
It was the procedure that was nuclear, not the specific form of filibuster disallowed. Now that the precedent has been set, there’s little to keep it from being extended to SCOTUS and legislation. Essentially, the Senate has become ruleless, just as the administration has been lawless.
Should the GOP gain a Senate majority in the next elections I can easily imagine Reid’s final act as Majority Leader is to have the outgoing Dem Senate majority to vote the 60-vote rule back into place
It wouldn’t matter, the new GOP majority would put it back to 51 as soon as it took the gavel.
The pro-filibuster Dems only voted for this because they were convinced that they were going to have a 51-vote Senate as soon as the Republicans got the majority, so why not go ahead now?
So the Democrats preemptively destroy an important rule of the Senate because the Republicans would have done it first? Only problem with that statement – the Demcrats did it not the Republicans.
Project much, Jim?
I don’t think it’s just projection — the GOP was pushing for this very change not long ago.
Unlike the Senate Dems I mentioned, I support the change not because the Republicans were going to do it anyway, but because it’s the way things should be. 51 Senators should be able confirm nominees (and pass bills).
Meanwhile have you caught the media’s projection? “We only did it because it’s what republicans would do.”
And there’s Jim up there, echoing you, Ken, only seriously.
The good news, I suppose, is the GOP has now been handed the means to repeal Obamacare by simple majority… and while they are at it, kill a lot of other Democrat “accomplishments”. So what if Reid’s move doesn’t yet include legislation… there’s no putting the genie back on the bottle now.
When Republicans were discussing the “nuclear option” back in 2005 or so, I was adamantly against it. The filibuster can be a pain in the neck, but it’s a mechanism that stops the majority from doing whatever nutty thing it wants, and it thus helps both sides (Majorities tend to flip back and forth over time). I also thought that Republicans in favor were being stupidly short-sighted, because majorities don’t last.
The same reasoning, of course, applies to the Democrats.
Question; can the senate similarly change its rules so a change in the leadership is no longer a simple majority vote, but requires 60? Reid could thus stay in power even if Republicans pick up half a dozen or more seats. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he did it…
As Reid just showed, 51 Senators can change the rules of the Senate at any time. So any rule that says you need more than a majority to do X is vulnerable, because a mere majority can change the rule and vote themselves the power to do X.
I’m not sure your change makes sense — I believe that the Senate elects a new majority leader at the beginning of each session, rather than changing leaders (i.e. I don’t think there is a majority leader on the first day of the session until one is elected). But even if Reid made such a change, the incoming GOP majority could immediately change the rule.
“The good news, I suppose, is the GOP has now been handed the means to repeal Obamacare by simple majority”
As I understand it..not directly. This nuke seems to deal only with sub-SCOTUS judicial appointment – not general voting in the Senate.
It was the procedure that was nuclear, not the specific form of filibuster disallowed. Now that the precedent has been set, there’s little to keep it from being extended to SCOTUS and legislation. Essentially, the Senate has become ruleless, just as the administration has been lawless.