Gone nuclear baby! (The Harry Reid Option)

[Nightshade]

Gorsuch is in!

Democrats brought this on themselves with the "Biden Rule" and Harry Reid "going nuclear" and cramming through any legislation he wanted when the democrats had the majority.

"Nuclear" doesn't give credit where credit is due. It should be called the "Reid Option" from now on.

[Ferno]

[callmeslick]

don't you love how the deflective right wing loons want to always blame someone else when their side fucks up? Reid's option? Give us an example when the Dems voted for it. They rejected that option going back to the 1933 Senate.

[Tunnelcat]

Ahhhh slick? ALL but 3 of the Dems DID vote for Reid's nuclear option back in 2013. No Republicans voted for it at all. Harry Reid did set precedence and now the system is even more broken.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

The clash ended with a vote nearly as partisan as the times — 52 to 48, with all but three Democrats backing the move and every Republican opposing it.

[Spidey]

Right wing…alternate facts

Left wing…alternate history

[callmeslick]

but, they found enough willing to put Party aside for the good of the nation. The spineless crew out there now apparently cannot. I, for one, am shocked at a couple that talked really tough on the matter still voted No to sustaining the traditional rule. Oh, well, what goes around.......

[callmeslick]

I'm shocked these board scholars didn't call it the Roosevelt option, because that was the first instance suggested of simple majority vote for judicial nominees(FDR threatened to pack the court to get Social Security and a couple other laws upheld). In all cases, the party which suggested the rule change had enough members of character to go against the party plan and kill the idea. This time, it didn't happen, not shocking as there seems to be a real lack of either political courage or respect for our system of governance in the GOP of late. However, demographics dictate the onward progression towards a Dem majority(remember, they still gained ground this election), as will the ongoing wave a judicial clampdown on gerrymandering and voter surpression(utterly no indication Gorsuch would affect that at the SCOTUS level, either). Sooner or later, the show will be on the other foot. And, given the utter failure of Trump as a leader or executive so far, it isn't far fetched to imagine a Dem President in time for a few appointments. Payback's a ★■◆●, but, frankly, I'd like to see it be a campaign promise to return to the old rules and do something to make them unbreachable.

[Nightshade]

Remember when...democrats loved the "nuclear option?"

[callmeslick]

like I say, SOME did. Certainly not enough to change the rules.

[Tunnelcat]

Come on slick. Admit it. The Dems started the Senate down this road by changing some of the rules back when they were somewhat in power and couldn't get a majority. They didn't like the rules, so they changed the rules to get what they wanted. They should have understood that a short term win would never be a long term gain, because now the Republicans have used the same tactic against them. What goes around comes around.

[woodchip]

TC you are correct. Now that the Republicans use it the left is going on attack. What they are really upset about is the Supreme Court is now a majority conservative bench. Grow up slick, if your side concentrated on focusing what the people wanted, they might not be losing power. The left is so facile that way back when Gorsuch was deemed sa very good choice, yet when Gorsuch was nominated, the left goes all out to vilify him. As Obama said, "Get over it, we won". Now that they lost the left wants to tear down the president administration and hope Trump gets impeached. Not going to happen.

[callmeslick]

TC you are correct. Now that the Republicans use it the left is going on attack. What they are really upset about is the Supreme Court is now a majority conservative bench.

Gorsuch may surprise you, and that was never a major issue when Scalia was alive. You are, once again, lying about things you can't possibly grasp.

[woodchip]

Slicks reply is the classic grasping at straws syndrome. Wassa madder slickums, is your party going down the toilet and there is nothing you can do about it?

[Top Gun]

Slicks reply is the classic grasping at straws syndrome. Wassa madder slickums, is your party going down the toilet and there is nothing you can do about it?

How's that view of your own colon treating you?

[callmeslick]

it's been up there so long, TG, it seems normal to him.

[Tunnelcat]

You know, I'm old enough to remember when cloture required a two thirds majority, or 67 votes. Sometime in the past, it was changed to 60 votes. Of course today, thanks to the Republicans, a simple majority is all that's needed for cloture. So I did some searching to find out when and who did it. It appears that happened in 1975, when the Senate was trying to pass the Civil Rights Bill. In a weird twist, it was the Dems who where in the majority and yet they were the ones that voted to change the rules, all because they couldn't get the racist and more conservative Southern Democrats within their own party to vote for the bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

The Senate's cloture rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof. For example, if all 96 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 64 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor. However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Democratic Senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to attain a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent Senator caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.

The new version of the cloture rule requiring three-fifths (60%) rather than two-thirds (66.7%) approval, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. Even so, a successful cloture motion is uncommon.

TC you are correct. Now that the Republicans use it the left is going on attack. What they are really upset about is the Supreme Court is now a majority conservative bench.

Actually, nothing has changed. SCOTUS has been majority conservative for many years. Scalia was a conservative and so is Gorsuch. The balance remains the same.