Senate blows through DEFCON-1, nukes itself

[Koyaanisqatsi]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/21/21562284-senate-goes-nuclear-democrats-approve-changes-to-filibuster-rules?lite

The Senate has voted to change one of the chamber's most fundamental rules, invoking the so-called 'nuclear option' for executive branch and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations.

Fifty-two Democrats voted for the measure, an unprecedented change previously threatened but not invoked until Thursday. Three Democrats -- Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Pryor of Arkansas -- voted with Republicans against the change.


While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., calls recent filibusters by Republicans a "troubling trend," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ken., fires back, saying we learned by watching you, citing Democrat-staged filibusters during George W. Bush's time in office.


The vote overturned an existing rule that required a 60-vote majority for the approval of presidential nominees nominees. Now, just a simple majority will be required for executive branch and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court picks.

[kentonio]

It had become an inevitability. If you obstuct a process for long enough, people will eventually just start going around you. It's a shame that it'll work in the GOP's favour at some point in the future though.

Reid pointed out why it had to happen though..

Half the nominees filibustered in the history of the United States were blocked by Republicans during the Obama administration; of 23 district court nominees filibustered in U.S. history, 20 were Obama's nominees; and even judges that have broad bipartisan support have had to wait nearly 100 days longer, on average, than President George W. Bush's nominees.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seig Heil!

Interesting to see the same people whining about the Republicans using the nuclear option support using it to clear 'obstruction'.



"if the Senate changes hands, rules revert back to a super-majority"

[Sava]

The obstructionism is a dying party's last grasp at relevancy.

[Ben Kenobi]

The obstructionism is a dying party's last grasp at relevancy.

On the part of the Democrats? Absolutely. Nice to see them try to cover their asses through one party rule.

[regexcellent]

The New York Times wrote this on the matter:

The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. Republicans and Democrats should tone down their rhetoric, then sit down and negotiate.

To block the nominees, the Democrats’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. Republican leaders now claim that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote. This is rank hypocrisy. When the tables were turned, Republicans filibustered President Bill Clinton’s choice for surgeon general, forcing him to choose another. And Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, who now finds judicial filibusters so offensive, himself joined one against Richard Paez, a Clinton appeals court nominee.

The Senate does much of its work by unanimous consent, which keeps things moving along and prevents ordinary day-to-day business from drowning in procedural votes. But if Republicans change the filibuster rules, Democrats could respond by ignoring the tradition of unanimous consent and making it difficult if not impossible to get anything done. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has warned that “the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.”

There is one way to avert a showdown. The White House should meet with Senate leaders of both parties and come up with a list of nominees who will not be filibustered. This means that Mr. Bush – like Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush before him – would agree to submit nominees from the broad mainstream of legal thought, with a commitment to judging cases, not promoting a political agenda.

Oh wait that was in 2005, it has since changed its tune.

This is a hilariously shortsighted move that will bite them in the ass in about 14 months. Blocking judicial appointments was a Dem staple for 6 ****ing years.

[Sava]

This is a hilariously shortsighted move that will bite them in the ass in about 14 months. Blocking judicial appointments was a Dem staple for 6 ****ing years.

There have been 23 such blocks in all of US history. 20 of which the Republicans have been responsible for under Obama.

Idiot.

[DinoDoc]

The obstructionism is a dying party's last grasp at relevancy.

Yes, if John McCain and company weren't such pussies the GOP would have done this in 2005 and filled vacancies with excellent judges simply bypassing Democratic obstructionism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good. Regardless of which ever party is in charge, federal judge spots shouldn't be vacant for that long.

[dannubis]

@ DD

[DinoDoc]

Good. Regardless of which ever party is in charge, federal judge spots shouldn't be vacant for that long.

If the GOP had been the ones to go nuclear first in order to ram through right wing judges for lifetime appointments, how do you think it would be playing here and in the media?

[Ben Kenobi]

If the GOP had been the ones to go nuclear first in order to ram through right wing judges for lifetime appointments, how do you think it would be playing here and in the media?

Now, now, DD. Stop being so partisan! You're obviously racist because you hate the president and everything he stands for.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the GOP had been the ones to go nuclear first in order to ram through right wing judges for lifetime appointments, how do you think it would be playing here and in the media?

Here is easily. You and Ben would be supporting it loudly over the obstructionist Dems & Sava and others would be decrying it.

[kentonio]

If the GOP had been the ones to go nuclear first in order to ram through right wing judges for lifetime appointments, how do you think it would be playing here and in the media?

That would probably depend on whether the Dems had just carried out a vast majority of fillibusters in US history. The numbers are clearly laid out above, feel free to defend them.

[Ben Kenobi]

You and Ben would be supporting it loudly over the obstructionist Dems & Sava and others would be decrying it.

I've been around since 05. Please find a post of me supporting the nuclear option.