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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

EdwardKingSolomon

(60 posts)
Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:47 PM Sep 2012

The "nuclear option" for the Senate after 2012. [View all]

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.

29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the Republicans win the senate and hold the house are you okay with them doing the same? dkf Sep 2012 #1
He still has a veto. Paulie Sep 2012 #2
Wouldnt the GOP still need a 2/3 majority to override a veto? DJ13 Sep 2012 #3
Do I take it that you are against the nuclear option? nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #5
I think it's dangerous...you can't expect we are the only ones who will use it. dkf Sep 2012 #13
If we dont use it doesnt for a minute guarantee they wont. They have proved they have no rhett o rick Sep 2012 #17
They need to bring that tradition back Aerows Sep 2012 #27
Yes I agree. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #28
The only thing to fear EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #21
Well said. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #29
I want a fillibuster to BE a fillibuster. Not this BS phone it in. yourout Sep 2012 #4
I think this is what the Democrats are looking at as a solution. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #6
Horrible idea. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #7
The country wasn't on the verge of collapse at that time EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #8
Also EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #9
No ... it's time has come. kurt_cagle Sep 2012 #10
Obama's Health care reform was "trivial"? (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #11
It is one of the very few pieces of Legislation that got through, and the result: EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #12
And how did the final bill pass in the Senate, do you know? eomer Sep 2012 #14
Budget reconciliation was only used to pass modifications to the bill bornskeptic Sep 2012 #15
No, reconciliation does not require 60 votes at any point and can be done more than once per year. eomer Sep 2012 #16
That's all well and good but the Repukes are misusing the rule. It needs to change. rhett o rick Sep 2012 #18
True, but for some reason some Democrats don't seem to want it known... eomer Sep 2012 #19
I fully understand. Like good cop bad cop. nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #22
I vote for direct democracy over representative democracy. nt Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #20
If the citizens wont work hard enough to get representative democracy to work rhett o rick Sep 2012 #23
Special Interests EdwardKingSolomon Sep 2012 #24
Good point. yourout Sep 2012 #26
I vote against direct democracy... yawnmaster Sep 2012 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The "nuclear option&...