The Nuclear Option

[K@th]

I'd like to discuss the nuclear option.

First, I'd like to state that I'm against majority partisans in Congress creating rules so that things will go the majority's way. It's silly and short-sighted... as if "this time," the majority will stay a majority forever and the new rule won't ever work against them.

So Reid creates this nuclear option for everything except SCOTUS nominees. McConnell now has the option to change that to include SCOTUS.

Here's where it gets weird for me.

The senate can change the rules with a 51 in-favor vote, whereas to override a filibuster requires 60 votes. This seems to make filibuster a moot point. It seems 60 votes are never truly needed if they can change all the rules with 51 votes.

Can someone explain the logic? (I realize we are talking about Congress, here, so logic may be the wrong word.)

[adwinistrator]

Are the discussions just about removing the "automatic filibuster", or the entire ability to filibuster?

I kind of want to make them work for it... But yeah, don't remove the entire ability to hold something up.

[Ex-California]

Are the discussions just about removing the "automatic filibuster", or the entire ability to filibuster?

I kind of want to make them work for it... But yeah, don't remove the entire ability to hold something up.

No, remove it. It isn't in the Constitution and goes against the intended checks and balances

[K@th]

My question is more generic.

1 - Repubs were filibustering all Obama's nominees, so the Dems just changed the rules so that you only needed 51 to confirm a POTUS pick for judges, except for SCOTUS nominees.

2 - If Dems start filibustering Trump's SCOTUS nominee, The Repubs could just vote to change Reid's rule to include SCOTUS with 51 votes.

So why bother with filibusters at all if 51 people can just come along when the vote isn't going their way and say, "filibuster no longer works for this?"

[K@th]

No, remove it. It isn't in the Constitution and goes against the intended checks and balances

I agree with you 100%, but since Congress gets to create their own rules, our opinion is meaningless.

[adwinistrator]

No, remove it. It isn't in the Constitution and goes against the intended checks and balances

I agree with you 100%, but since Congress gets to create their own rules, our opinion is meaningless.

The Standing Rules of the Senate are the parliamentary procedures adopted by the United States Senate that govern its procedure. The Senate's power to establish rules derives from Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

[adwinistrator]

My question is more generic.

1 - Repubs were filibustering all Obama's nominees, so the Dems just changed the rules so that you only needed 51 to confirm a POTUS pick for judges, except for SCOTUS nominees.

2 - If Dems start filibustering Trump's SCOTUS nominee, The Repubs could just vote to change Reid's rule to include SCOTUS with 51 votes.

So why bother with filibusters at all if 51 people can just come along when the vote isn't going their way and say, "filibuster no longer works for this?"

1. I don't remember the rules change when it occured, but was this voted on 67 Senators? If not, Republicans could have filibustered the rules change.

2. They could change the rules again, but they need 67.

The nuclear option is basically blowing up the entire instrument of the filibuster, which obviously both parties want to have as a defensive measure when they are in the minority. Once you blow it up, you can't get it back.

The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. They immediately put the issue to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate rule.

[Ex-California]

My question is more generic.

1 - Repubs were filibustering all Obama's nominees, so the Dems just changed the rules so that you only needed 51 to confirm a POTUS pick for judges, except for SCOTUS nominees.

2 - If Dems start filibustering Trump's SCOTUS nominee, The Repubs could just vote to change Reid's rule to include SCOTUS with 51 votes.

So why bother with filibusters at all if 51 people can just come along when the vote isn't going their way and say, "filibuster no longer works for this?"

I agree. The problem I think is that these vaunted elites that run our country are too stupid to see this blatantly obvious point.

[K@th]

1. I don't remember the rules change when it occured, but was this voted on 67 Senators? If not, Republicans could have filibustered the rules change.

2. They could change the rules again, but they need 67.

I'm not sure where you are getting that 67 from. A rules change requires 51 votes. If 51 votes can change it so that 60 votes are no longer needed to pass the "thing," there is simply no point to the filibuster.

[adwinistrator]

1. I don't remember the rules change when it occured, but was this voted on 67 Senators? If not, Republicans could have filibustered the rules change.

2. They could change the rules again, but they need 67.

I'm not sure where you are getting that 67 from. A rules change requires 51 votes. If 51 votes can change it so that 60 votes are no longer needed to pass the "thing," there is simply no point to the filibuster.

67 for amending a Senate rule.

Davis, C. M. (April 24, 2015). Invoking Cloture in the Senate. Congressional Research Service.

The majority required to invoke cloture for most business is three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 votes if there are no vacancies in the Senate’s membership. However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s standing rules requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if all 100 Senators vote. Additionally, under a November 21, 2013, precedent established by the Senate, invoking cloture on presidential nominations to positions other than the Supreme Court of the United States requires a vote of a majority of Senators present and voting, or 51 votes if all 100 Senators vote.