Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Asking DU's Senate procedural experts: No debate allowed on rules changes??? (Original Post) rgbecker Apr 2017 OP
In this specific case no debate allowed. Here's the explanation of why not... PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #1
Thanks for the info and link. rgbecker Apr 2017 #2
Yes. The Senate can reinstate the rules or a variation mythology Apr 2017 #3
"What one Senate does, another can undo". n/t PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #4

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
1. In this specific case no debate allowed. Here's the explanation of why not...
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:14 PM
Apr 2017

from the Wikipedia page on the Nuclear Option...

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

The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option affects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

rgbecker

(4,826 posts)
2. Thanks for the info and link.
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:41 PM
Apr 2017

The talk is that this now holds for all nominees in the future. But couldn't a future Senate invoke/re-establish the filibuster requirement when they first meet again for a new session? I understand the majority may not ever want to, but could they?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Asking DU's Senate proced...