Even Claire McCaskill says Schumer should exercise the nuclear option now

[servermsh]

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2021, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

EDIT: On Rachel Maddow's show it was announced that the Senate will move forward with adopting an organizing resolution. It appears Mitch may have caved, but we should also see what the organizing resolution says.


Original post below
-----------------------------------
Claire McCaskill is not my favorite Democrat. However she said something on Nicole's show today that I have been saying for days: Schumer should get Democrats to exercise the nuclear option on the Organizing Resolution:

Claire:

The practical problem is that Chuck Schumer doesn't have 50 votes to change the rules on filibuster. He doesn't have the 50 votes. And McConnell knows it. So this is going to create an impasse until --- What I think needs to happen --- This is just my two bits. I think Chuck needs to use the nuclear option to change the rules to allow the organizing motion to be privileged, and therefore it doesn't need 60 votes, like reconciliation like a few other things. Because if Mitch McConnell is not gonna allow them even to organize the Senate, then they gotta rap him on the knuckles hard. And while they may not have the votes to blow up the filibuster right now, I think they would have the votes to let the Democrats take over the chairmanships they earned. So that to me is the way forward. In my opinion, the sooner they get at it, the better.

[SunSeeker]

1. They have no choice, they must jettison the filibuster to get stuff done, or they'll lose in 2022.

It's plain as day.

[BComplex]

2. They have to bide their time for that, but Schumer needs to get the nuclear option done

so they can at least get on with committee chairmanships and cleanup issues.

Plus, by a 1 person majority vote, they can change the rules so that any filibuster needs to have a person talking non-stop and BE IN THE ROOM.

That can be a simple rule change. If the republicans want to filibuster, they're going to have to pay the physical price for it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. It's not that simple- the rule change vote is simple majority, but the motion to proceed isn't

Before a floor vote on a rule change can happen, a Motion To Proceed must pass, and that is subject to filibuster.

The filibuster, in all shapes and forms must be dead, dead, dead, twelve ways to Sunday, no exceptions, no excuses.

The stakes are too high.

[SunSeeker]

43. Then how was McConnell able to ditch the filibuster without a supermajority vote? nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. He used a parliamentary maneuver to shut down debate, but more importantly, had 51+ votes. Nt

[SunSeeker]

54. We have 51. Why can't we do the same?

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. We do not have 51 votes to kill filibuster- we don't even have 48 votes. Nt

[SunSeeker]

58. Schumer just needs to nail down Sinema and Manchin, then we have 51 with Harris.

Republicans have made it clear they won't vote for the covid relief package Sinema's and Manchin's constituents desperately need. If Schumer can't convince those two of the need to get rid of the filibuster so we can rescue the American people, maybe some other Dem should be Senate Majority leader.

[ancianita]

59. Wait, I thought the 117th is 50-50, right? And Harris (?) would break vote ties?

What the heck were we all crazy about the GA vote for, if not that? And we could get at least one reasonable Repub to join us, right? Schumer is the majority leader for a reason, so...
What am I missing?

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. The senate is currently organized under rules adopted on January 3

Before Dems won the majority, so Republicans chair committees, not Dems, and can block legislation from moving to the floor.

Rules can be changed with a simple majority vote, however, the Motion To Proceed to a floor vote can be blocked by filibuster.

Schumer could use a parliamentary maneuver to force a floor vote on changing the rule on filibusters so a new organizing resolution could be voted on, but he doesn’t have 50 votes, as 2-3 Dem senators opposed changing the filibuster rule, even if just for the organizing resolution.

So, at the moment, Schumer is majority leader in name only, and with the filibuster intact, has very little power to do anything.

[ancianita]

61. If this is the case then it's been a trap and the nuclear option is the only way out of this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. Yes, it is- only the timing is up for debate

Go nuclear over the Organizing Resolution, which few Americans understand, and it will likely fail.

Go nuclear over the COVID relief bill, which every American understands, and there’s a better (but not guaranteed) chance of getting Manchin and Sinema on board.

Manchin and Sinema would both have more power and influence without the filibuster, so I am mystified why they oppose killing it.

[ancianita]

65. Good. The timing is to overturn the Organizing Resolution. There's got to be ONE country over

party Repub in that group -- say, Romney. Sell the power gain Sinema would get. Sell McCain on switching parties. Anything.

Looks like it's breaking right now that McCONNELL HAS CAVED.

So I guess our worries are moot??

[Bev54]

27. Yes I agree but

not sure they have the votes with Manchin and Sinema. Somebody needs to get in their heads about this, start calling their offices asap.

[SunSeeker]

38. Schumer needs to whip his caucus, in every sense of the term.

Time for Schumer to play hardball.

[Bev54]

45. Biden may have to get involved and meet with them

they likely are attention seekers who need to be coddled.

[NCDem47]

3. Good God. Just get it done.

[mcar]

41. How?

Be specific.

[Laelth]

4. I agree. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[comradebillyboy]

5. What exactly is the nuclear option?

I keep seeing called for but I don’t know what it is.

[BlueSky3]

9. from Wikipedia

Here's what Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#:~:text=The%20nuclear%20option%20is%20a,required%20to%20amend%20the%20rules.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. Moscow Mitch will obstruct as long as he is given the power to do so. He's working the press.

[SharonClark]

7. McCaskill's insight into process is very important.

I’m always glad to hear her on MSNBC because she’s tired of the bullshit and wants to get things done.

[Karadeniz]

17. I wasn't a huge fan when she was a senator... but what did I know...but on MSNBC I love her

Commentaries and explanations, like you.

[bottomofthehill]

29. Maybe not a big fan but she was beaten by Josh Hawley

Clearly, she was way better than that.

[Karadeniz]

32. OMG...I didn't realize the voters of Missouri fell for him! Actually, I do. He puts up a good facade

[bottomofthehill]

35. I would rather have any democrat over a Republican.

Manchin, Senima, although we can’t totally rely on them, we know how the vote would be if their seat was held by a Republican.

[Karadeniz]

57. True!

[StarfishSaver]

64. One of the reasons she was beaten by Hawley was that too many Dems thought she was too moderate

and refused to support her.

This is the result of mindless purity tests.

[bottomofthehill]

66. Agreed, and we would be so much better with her there.

She is clearly too moderate for Massachusetts, but she was as good as we were going to get in MO

[StarfishSaver]

67. Exactly

[MontanaMama]

8. The US Sentate has turned into

an overpaid bunch of do-nothings thanks to Republicans, McConnell and their criminal obstruction. GET THIS DONE.

[mcar]

46. How?

Be specific. Thanks.

[themaguffin]

10. I agree, but I don't like the term "nuclear option" which makes the Dems look like the extreme ones.

[Thekaspervote]

11. Schumer is in a tough spot, it isn't him. Sinema, Manchin and maybe Feinstein

[moonscape]

36. She was talking about a way to require a simple

majority in order to organize the Senate, not to eliminate the filibuster for which we don’t have tthe votes.

[bucolic_frolic]

13. It's done not much for us lately. GOP got what they want. Let's not give them tools to block us.

[W_HAMILTON]

14. McCaskill has been pretty damn awesome as a commentator.

I get the feeling that a lot of her, let's say, Manchin-like antics while she was senator was due to her having to hold back to win in a super-red state. Now that she no longer has that problem, she doesn't really hold back and is actually much further left than I first thought. I remember her, in her role as commentator, telling her former colleagues -- at the time I believe she was directing it towards Republicans to do the right thing in regards to something Trump-related, maybe impeachment -- that losing your seat, ESPECIALLY if it's due to doing the right thing, is not the end-all be-all. There is life after politics, she said.

I hope she gets on the phone with Manchin and any other holdouts from our side that are reluctant to engage in filibuster reform and drive home this point.

[Celerity]

28. so true, I think she by nature is far more liberal than Manchin and (now gone) Heitkamp,

Donnelly, etc.

Sinema is hard to figure out, she could be another McCaskill I think, as she was far more left early on and morphed into a semi-conservative centrist (she voted with Trump as much as Manchin, those two far more than any other Democratic Senator still there), BUT Sinema has by far the highest plus/minus score of any Dem Senator, meaning she voted more with Trump than her State would predict, for example she is almost full 61 points higher than Tester, a plus 10.6 versus a minus 50.3. As for McCaskill, she was a minus 37.2, so Sinema is around 48 points higher than her).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

Ignore Lummis, she was only there for a few votes in January 2021, and is a RWNJ in reality

[ancianita]

15. She is absolutely right. Dems need to stop giving a damn what anybody says about them.

I don't know why we don't have a 50 vote, or who it is we can't depend on, but this nuclear option is a rule, and so we should use what helps our legislative progress.

from wikipedia (thanks, BlueSky3)

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

This procedure uses Rule XX to allow the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of Rule XXII, which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

Let them scream to hell and back.

[mcar]

47. How will they accomplish this without 51 votes?

Be specific.

[George II]

16. Why "even" Claire McCaskill?

[servermsh]

19. Because she was one of the most conservative Democrats. n/t

[George II]

21. She IS a Democrat, not "was" a Democrat. Again, she IS a Democrat.

[servermsh]

22. n/t

[jcgoldie]

25. They obviously meant was one of the most conservative democrats IN THE SENATE

Everybody here including you knows that was what was meant.

[mcar]

48. Right?

[lpbk2713]

23. Turkey neck has already said he would be an obstructionist.

He will never change. Do whatever needs to be done and piss on him.

[orangecrush]

24. Nuke the obstructionists

Let them feel some of the pain we have felt for the last 4 years.

[TimeToGo]

26. So, this is the thing

What do republicans and the media think should happen? What is the right way for democratic senators to deal with McConnell? What's the "good" way?

There isn't - because McC is the bad guy here. He's the same as Trump after the election.

[bottomofthehill]

30. Yes, but lacking 2 democratic votes, there is nothing he can do.

[Iggo]

31. Good. We need her vote.

Thanks, Manchin. (You too, Sinema.)

[Bettie]

33. So, if McConnell won't give in and Shumer won't

or can't do anything about it, what happens? Do Republicans keep the chairmanships and numbers advantage on committees?

Does Moscow Mitch just get to keep running the whole show because two Democrats can't be bothered to show unity with their party?

What are they offering Manchin and Sinema to obstruct?

[grantcart]

37. You ignore her first sentence

"The practical problem is that Chuck Schumer doesn't have 50 votes to change the rules on filibuster. He doesn't have the 50 votes"


He doesn't have the votes.

[mcar]

49. Thank you

These people are driving me mad.

[mcar]

39. How can he do this

without 50 votes? Be specific.

[Eyeball_Kid]

40. Schumer must tell Manchin and Sinema:

You will ensure that the Dems WILL BE DEFEATED IN 2022 if the Dems do not eliminate the filibuster. Period. Do not mince words. Put the responsibility directly on their shoulders.

In addition, Schumer must offer a carrot as well as display a stick. He must offer them something in return, such as legislation very favorable to their constituents.

This cannot fail. Schumer wanted to be majority leader. Here we are.

[NoMoreRepugs]

42. Democratic Senators displaying any disloyalty have to go.

[mcar]

50. Where should they go? When? How?

Be specific.

[mvd]

44. She does seem better as a commentator

Makes me think being Senator from Missouri held her back to some extent.

[kentuck]

51. They would need at least 51 votes.

They don't have them.

[Mr. Sparkle]

52. no filibuster vote from Joe, no chairmanship. Suck it up Joe!

a nuclear option would put less pressure on those 2 or 3 wobbly Democrats not to end the filibuster.

[Celerity]

56. It is now not just Manchin, Sinema is now also on record saying no, and Feinstein always was a no

as well, at least up until now.

Sinema joins Manchin as being on record as against ending the filibuster

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215005932

snip



There may, may, be others too (perhaps Angus King, Mark Kelly, Bennett, Warner, Kaine, Tester, Booker, and Gary Peters, who have all said no in the past, although some have at least come around to considering it).

[ancianita]

62. We should get off here, get over to social media and start swarming Schumer. I just all capped

him on Facebook and got 10 likes right away.

[BobTheSubgenius]

68. This subject is way more complicated thatn I thought.

And I thought it was pretty complicated already. Reading through this thread was a great education, in that it clearly showed how many of the arcane rules and procedures I know nothing about.