The "nuclear option" for the Senate after 2012.

[EdwardKingSolomon]

It is well known that a Filibuster in the Senate can be broken by a 60% majority; however, these past couple of decades, neither party has ever achieved a reliable "filibuster-proof" majority nor leaning in the Senate. Both parties have used this in extreme circumstances that conflicted with their beliefs and ideologies countless times in our history. These past four years however, the Republicans have used it as a brick wall of obstructionism against Obama for EVERY MAJOR PIECE OF LEGISLATION. It has become common practice to force a 60% majority in the Senate to pass bill.

Thankfully, the Rules of the Senate (and House of Reps) are not written in the Constitution, but the procedure for both creating the rules and changing them are. As precisely worded in our Constitution:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

This allows the Senate, with a simple 50% majority, to rewrite the Rules of Procedure for the Senate at ANY time. This has been known as the "nuclear option" for the Senate. Although it has been threatened several times in our history, it has never been used, nor was it ever going to be used even if the other party continued to resist. In general, it was an empty threat (except in the case of the 2005 judicial appointment filibusters).

Why is this important? I am very confident that President Obama is going to win re-election, and he'll influence the results of the Congressional elections as well. We should have a majority in both Houses and a Democratic President at the start of 2013. However, I am also tragically confident that we will not come close to a 60% majority in the Senate. This will allow the Republican party to obstruct us for the next four years (2013 -2016), allowing them to fabricate a more compelling case in the election of 2016 that Democrats didn't fix anything.

But should we allow them to do this? Right now the United States is still in great economic and foreign peril, the middle class still hinges on the verge of collapse, and our tax system is absolutely ridiculous. Republicans have been holding the middle class hostage in Congressional procedures via filibuster, forcing completely unfair compromises for the Democrats (the majority party in the Senate by the way) in order to avoid crises. This even resulted in a downgrade of the US credit rating. As of 2009-2012, the Republican MINORITY has wreaked havoc and usurped the ELECTED majority. The Filibuster is being abused, it is as simple as that.

The answer, if the Democrats win 2012, is to invoke the nuclear option IMMEDIATELY. Do not wait for any discussions or debates on a single Bill or piece of Legislation. The very first act of Congress should be to rewrite it's Rules of Procedure, and to strip all "minority protections" immediately.

Some may argue that this would be a bad move, because one day Republicans will regain a Majority in the House and Senate. This may be true, but for once I agree with Rush Limbaugh ... If the Democrats win 2012, the Republican Party will come to an end as we know it.

The Republican Party will realize that it finally has to undergo a fundamental change and realignment of its policies, that become friendly and inclusive of minorities, and to the middle class. By the time Republicans regain power, it will be much more Libertarian that neo-conservative (this is assuming of course that Democrats WIN 2012 AND INVOKE the NUCLEAR OPTION IMMEDIATELY).

Once we have removed the Filibuster tactic from the Senate, Democrats will finally be able to achieve all the many things of the people and middle class (and budget) that they've always dreamed of. The people will feel the change and rejoice in it (look how many moderate Republicans already support the Obamacare policy on pre-existing conditions and coverage for their offspring until the age of 26). We WILL receive new deal in federal student loans, paying a small portion of your salary, instead of a fixed dollar amount.

Jobs would be created by the creation and repair of our aging roads, highways, electronic and sewage infrastructure (especially if the US government only purchases raw materials and manufactured products made in the US only for these repairs). We would see a growth in education, trade, decent-paying jobs and better/more affordable healthcare. The majority of Americans would be pleased, and Democrats would enjoy an era not experienced since FDR. American respect would continue to increase worldwide, we would finally transition into green energy (less dependence on Middle Eastern Oil), and may start a new era of American Scientific Inspiration (like the days of going to the moon), where being knowledgeable of evolution, global warming and the fact the earth is round would be celebrated, not an opinion to be debated by people like Ann Coulter.

So, I say, to hell with the Republican minority. INVOKE THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

[dkf]

1. If the Republicans win the senate and hold the house are you okay with them doing the same?

That would leave Obama vs a Republican congress.

[Paulie]

2. He still has a veto.

So no worse than Clinton times.

[DJ13]

3. Wouldnt the GOP still need a 2/3 majority to override a veto?

[rhett o rick]

5. Do I take it that you are against the nuclear option? nm

[dkf]

13. I think it's dangerous...you can't expect we are the only ones who will use it.

[rhett o rick]

17. If we dont use it doesnt for a minute guarantee they wont. They have proved they have no

principles. The rule is being abused. It would be stupid to continue as we are. There are solutions other than complete elimination. Democrats are considering forcing anyone wanting to filibuster to have to speak on the floor.

[Aerows]

27. They need to bring that tradition back

If they have to sit there and read the phone book for 36 hours straight, so be it. They've gotten way to comfortable about filibustering. Make them speak on the floor.

[rhett o rick]

28. Yes I agree. nm

[EdwardKingSolomon]

21. The only thing to fear

is fear itself.

Also, what's stops the Republicans from using it when they take power?

[rhett o rick]

29. Well said. nm

[yourout]

4. I want a fillibuster to BE a fillibuster. Not this BS phone it in.

If you want to Filibuster than you have to stand up and talk and talk and talk.

[rhett o rick]

6. I think this is what the Democrats are looking at as a solution. nm

[Nye Bevan]

7. Horrible idea.

Think of what George W Bush did with a Republican House and Senate.

Now imagine what he would have done with a Republican House and Senate but with no filibuster.

[EdwardKingSolomon]

8. The country wasn't on the verge of collapse at that time

different times

[EdwardKingSolomon]

9. Also

The Democrats weren't invoking the "reverse nuclear option" of using the filibuster to shut down the Senate for two years.

[kurt_cagle]

10. No ... it's time has come.

The filibuster is not a constitutional maneuver, it is simply a rule of order. If we are in the same position as we were in 2000-2006 then we take our lumps, let the Republicans prove that they are idiots, and let the electorate decide. Similarly, if the Democrats are in the majority, then it is the job of the Supreme Court to act as a check on power. In a country as evenly divided as this one is, a filibuster simply insures that only the most trivial legislation passes.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Obama's Health care reform was "trivial"? (nt)

[EdwardKingSolomon]

12. It is one of the very few pieces of Legislation that got through, and the result:

1) Obamacare was watered down by Conservatives, and the compromises made were heavily lopsided in favor of the MINORITY party.

2) Republican Senators like Olympia Snowe became "doomed" for reelection after lifting the filibuster. This was a warning to all Republicans in the future to fall-in-line with a filibuster at any cost.

3) That was the very few pieces of non-trivial legislation passed in FOUR years. A broken clock is right twice a day.

[eomer]

14. And how did the final bill pass in the Senate, do you know?

It did not have 60 votes so a filibuster would have killed it. But it couldn't be filibustered because Democrats used the budget reconciliation process.

In other words, there is already a way to get around the filibuster in many cases and it has been used numerous times over the last several decades; much of the major legislation over that period was done that way. But Democrats used it only for Obamacare and education finance reform in the two years that they held both houses (2009/2010). Democrats should not go to the nuclear option. They should just take advantage of the existing rules that have always been available (and stop with the "bipartisan" nonsense).

[bornskeptic]

15. Budget reconciliation was only used to pass modifications to the bill

which had been passed originally during the brief period when there were 60 Democrats and allied Independents. Budget Reconciliation could never have been used to pass the bill otherwise. It can only be used in very limited circumstances, and only once a year. The other major pieces of legislation passed since Obama was President, the ARRA and Dodd-Frank, were only possible because the Democrats had just short of a 60-vote supermajority and managed to get one or two Republicans to break ranks. There's no prospect of comparable success in the next four years if the abomination called the filibuster remains in place. There will be no comprehensive immigration reform, no significant infrastructure investment, and no attempt to deal with climate change, and dozens of federal judicial and administrative positions will continue to be unfilled. The filibuster is, and always was, the friend of those who oppose progress and hate government.

[eomer]

16. No, reconciliation does not require 60 votes at any point and can be done more than once per year.

And, what's more, a reconciliation bill can include any number of unrelated measures.

There are some limits on what can be done through reconciliation but the ones you've stated are not true.

The main limit is that any measure must be budget-related to be included in a budget reconciliation bill. Another constraint is that there is a specific process that must be followed. But nowhere in that process are 60 votes required. I can also cite a year when more than one reconciliation bill was passed, I think during Reagan, if you need me to look it up.

In particular, something that could have been done and could be in the future through reconciliation is to raise taxes on the wealthy, including taxing capital gains and taxing trading transactions. These things could be done with just a simple majority in both houses without any step at which you need 60 Senators.

Edit to add: here is an explanation of the process that shows that 60 votes are not required at any point:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

[rhett o rick]

18. That's all well and good but the Repukes are misusing the rule. It needs to change.

To continue as we are is suicide. Democrats are currently considering requiring anyone filibustering to have to verbally hold the floor.

[eomer]

19. True, but for some reason some Democrats don't seem to want it known...

... the things that can be done by going around the filibuster rather than falsely claiming it obstructs everything.

[rhett o rick]

22. I fully understand. Like good cop bad cop. nm

[Comrade_McKenzie]

20. I vote for direct democracy over representative democracy. nt

[rhett o rick]

23. If the citizens wont work hard enough to get representative democracy to work

what makes you think they would do better at direct democracy?

[EdwardKingSolomon]

24. Special Interests

Would have a harder time splitting campaign donations among the masses.

[yourout]

26. Good point.

[yawnmaster]

25. I vote against direct democracy...

I want a fairly elected representative who represents the PEOPLE in their district and the welfare of the American people.

A direct democracy is quite dangerous on a large scale.