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
In reply to the discussion: Whose fault if the "nuclear option" is used to put Gorsuch on the Court?? [View all]jmg257
(11,996 posts)28. Whomever set using it as precedent...
In 1917, a threat to use what is now known as the nuclear option resulted in reform of the Senate's filibuster rules. An opinion written by Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957 concluded that the U.S. Constitution grants the presiding officer the authority to override Senate rules.[1] The option was used to make further rule changes in 1975.[2] In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.
Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" 67 or more votes) to end debate on a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court
Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" 67 or more votes) to end debate on a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court
Apparently using for the USSC is new.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Whose fault if the "nuclear option" is used to put Gorsuch on the Court?? [View all]
kentuck
Apr 2017
OP
I would agree that it is his decision whether to put the vote to a simple majority...
kentuck
Apr 2017
#11
GOP senators only unilaterally vote because of fear of retalitation by their fuhrer and the Kochs
Jonny Appleseed
Apr 2017
#19
The current filibuster rule only dates back to 1975 when the "talking filibuster" was eliminated.
PoliticAverse
Apr 2017
#6
The nuclear option was already done when they blocked Garland's appointment without a hearing. This
still_one
Apr 2017
#13
That is exactly where I got it from kentuck. I couldn't remember who said it, and appreciate
still_one
Apr 2017
#25