The Nuclear Option

[TheReal_ND]

Fuck Faggot Graham and fuck "War Hero" McCain.

[K@th]

67 for amending a Senate rule.

You're not comprehending.

Harry Reid couldn't get 60 senators to confirm Obama's nominees to federal courts.

He didn't suddenly get 67 votes to change the rule so that only 51 votes were needed to confirm nominees. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Reid got a majority vote to change the rule so that only 51 votes were needed to confirm nominees.

[LVH2]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said Monday that if Hillary Clinton is elected, Republicans will unite to block anyone she nominates to the Supreme Court.

Speaking on WPHT-AM radio's "Dom Giordano Program" in Philadelphia, McCain pledged to obstruct any Clinton Supreme Court nomination for the current or any future vacancy.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," he declared.

McCain said that's why it is so important that Republicans retain control of the Senate.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520 ... ium=social

Can't blame Dems if they do the same thing, especially after the Garland craziness.

So, going forward, I guess this is how it goes.

I expect Dems to capitulate more often, though. It's just what they do.

[PartyOf5]

There used to be at least some honor among these thieves. It has now become win at all costs. No move is considered out of bounds as long as they can get away with it. The Dems lit this fuse and used it to throw bombs when they had control. Now they are screeching "no fair" as the GOP threatens to use the same weapon against them.

[PartyOf5]

As a precaution, someone better explain to Trump what they mean when they ask him about using the nuclear option.

[K@th]

As a precaution, someone better explain to Trump what they mean when they ask him about using the nuclear option.

[adwinistrator]

67 for amending a Senate rule.

You're not comprehending.

Harry Reid couldn't get 60 senators to confirm Obama's nominees to federal courts.

He didn't suddenly get 67 votes to change the rule so that only 51 votes were needed to confirm nominees. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Reid got a majority vote to change the rule so that only 51 votes were needed to confirm nominees.

You're not comprehending. I am not disagreeing with you, I misunderstood what the changes were back in 2013. That's why I had asked. In order to modify the Senate rules, without the nuclear option, you need 67 votes.

On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called "nuclear option", voting 52-48—with all Republicans and three Democrats voting against—to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.

They didn't amend the Senate rules, they nuked them, but only for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.

[K@th]

They didn't amend the Senate rules, they nuked them, but only for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.

But with a simple majority, the Rs can again change the rules so that it includes SCOTUS nominees. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement from either side that McConnell has this option.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... ption.html
But this opens Democrats up to accusations of obstructionism, and also could push the Republicans to use the “nuclear option” to change the rules to blunt the filibuster – something then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did for lower court nominees in 2013.

[adwinistrator]

They didn't amend the Senate rules, they nuked them, but only for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.

But with a simple majority, the Rs can again change the rules so that it includes SCOTUS nominees. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement from either side that McConnell has this option.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... ption.html

But this opens Democrats up to accusations of obstructionism, and also could push the Republicans to use the “nuclear option” to change the rules to blunt the filibuster – something then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did for lower court nominees in 2013.

I'm on the same page now. At first, I thought the discussion was about changing the rules without using the nuclear option.

They did also change the rules (just for that session) back in 2013 as well, using the normal 2/3's vote, and not going nuclear.

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in the approval of two packages of amendments to the Senate's filibuster rules on January 25, 2013. Changes to standing orders affecting just the 2013–14 Congress (Senate Resolution 15) were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing Reid, the majority leader, to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill. Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) were passed by a vote of 86 to 9

I can't see both parties coming to a compromise and modifying rules again, especially after the Garland block by Republicans. We'll have to see if the Republicans want to nuke the SCOTUS filibuster, giving it up for their own future use as well, just to not deal with it now.

[PartyOf5]

I can't see both parties coming to a compromise and modifying rules again, especially after the Garland block by Republicans. We'll have to see if the Republicans want to nuke the SCOTUS filibuster, giving it up for their own future use as well, just to not deal with it now.

The only future any of them are concerned about is their next re-election. That's as far as they can see.