Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change rules, prohibit filibusters

[Inuca]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

I am not in fron of a TV, but I think this is happening right now. Twitter is a-tweet with comments from the Congress journalists. For instance, just a few minutes ago, from the WP congress blogger

2chambers Felicia Sonmez
Reid shoots back, in a dig at McConnell: "Let's get back to legislating as we did before the mantra around here was, 'Defeat Obama.'"

But I am too tired to be able to follow and understand exactly what's happening. If some Senate geek out there can explain in plain English, it would be much appreciated.

[Canuckistanian]

1. If this is confirmed, it's going to be HUGH

Expect much propaganda to ensue.

[Bloke 32]

21. Jackman or Grant?

Terribly sorry, but the temptation was simply unbearable! ;-)

[Canuckistanian]

29. It's an old DU tradition

It's sort of a parody of a typical Free Republic excited post, minus the 15 exclamation marks.

[razorman]

41. Hefner.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, good for him. Finally.

[TheBigotBasher]

23. Would have been in January 2009.

Now, on the verge of a horror show. There was a reason MAD worked.

[Inuca]

3. It is going on now

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/06/1023637/--Breaking:-Reid-throws-the-bomb?via=siderecent

[bluestate10]

28. GIVE THEM HELL HARRY!!! nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Holy shit! I know bout time to tend this fillibuster

commedy of errors, but still HOLY SHIT!

[JVS]

5. How does this really make a difference? If we still held the House, I'd think it was something...

huge, but when nothing will go through the house I'm not seeing this as relevant.


It's like saying "Is the car in neutral? Ok then gun the engine!"

Or am I missing something here?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. They might be finding this

And I agree by the way, should have been done oh four years ago.

[JVS]

9. I'd like to think so, but I think that's an over-optimistic assessment.

The cynic in me says they're doing this because they know it doesn't have any consequence.

The even darker cynic in me says they're doing this so that they have an excuse not to put up any resistance when the republicans take over the senate in 2012

The most pitch black of all cynics in me says that they're doing this now because they don't want to make it look like the republicans are the ones going for a power grab when they come in in 2013 and rewrite the senate rules to forbid a filibuster from the beginning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. The real cynic in me says that they are doing this

becuase we are near declaring the republic over... and the charade over...

I am darker than you.

But I think the push back has started, and not precisely in DC.

There is a pushback FINALLY.

:hi:

[democrat2thecore]

15. It's not the 'Arab Spring'

But it's "Fall In America" and the leaders don't like it one bit.
So, "Fall-in" America!

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. It is connected at a deep level

but it has it's own needs and it's own organic message.

[democrat2thecore]

20. ???

Sounds good - but what did you just say? (Sorry - maybe I'm just a little slow on the uptake tonight).

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. The parallel to this world wide movement is 1848

those democratic revolutions were connected... just as this is connected to Greece, Spain. England, Tahrir square...

Each place has it's own demands, but the common demand is bringing under control the transnationals. That is one of them. In the US it is to make our system responsive to us... in Tahrir it was to get rid of a dictartorship.

[democrat2thecore]

25. Oh...okay...I think you're on the right track! -nt

[louslobbs]

18. lol......a backbone.....I'm stealing that cartoon Nadin........thanks. n/t

Lou

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Oh it is a classic...

[louslobbs]

24. I hadn't seen it before, thanks again......I'm already sending it out lol....I love it.

Lou

[Better Believe It]

6. This of course could have been done by the Democratic Senate in 2009/2010 when they

claimed they needed Republican votes in order to pass any legislation because of Republican "procedural" filibusters.

The Republicans will now easily overcome Democratic "procedural filibusters" with the "nuclear option" should they gain control of the Senate in 2012.

[vi5]

8. That's probably the point...

Change it just in time for the Republicans to take back control of the Senate, after spending the previous 3 plus years shrugging your shoulders and going "Derrrrrr....nothing we can do."

[Better Believe It]

10. Exactly!

[rampart]

35. i agree. this is too late to help wwhen we were on the offensive

and just in time to destroy our best defense after the upcoming "shellacking."

[unblock]

11. brilliant, limiting filibusters while the republicans control the house.

now, democratic senators can pass legislation that the house won't even bother debating.



i certainly agree that the republicans have vastly abused the filibuster, but how different things could have been had they done this in 2009.

[democrat2thecore]

12. Well, if and when WE become the minority, we'll rue this day.

Election year politics. This is not best for the country - mainly because of what I just wrote in the subject line. Many Democrats aren't exactly happy, either. Expect "They changed the rules..." election year spots.

Change is not going to come through Reid or Obama - it's going to come through the people!

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Too bad for us. The filibuster was anti democracy. It cuts both ways.

[razorman]

42. Absolutely. In 2005, the roles were reversed. Harry Reid was fighting to preserve the filibuster,

and the Republicans were considering the "nuclear option". Some day, the two parties will have switched positions again. However, no longer having a filibuster will be to the Repubs advantage, then. Our senators will be unable to filibuster right-wing judicial nominees. And we will have no right to complain about it. Thanks, Harry, you shortsighted asshole.

[Zorra]

14. OWS, and now this? Holy shit! Am I dreaming?

Better Late Than Never.

Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[Bloke 32]

26. Story and Link

Reid's ‘nuclear option’ changes rules, ends repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton - 10/06/11 07:01 PM ET

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to end a filibuster.

Reid said these motions, which do not need unanimous consent, amount to a second-round filibuster after the Senate has voted to move to final passage of a measure.

The Senate voted 51-48 to back Reid and overturn the Senate precedent. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Democrat to vote against his leader.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

[BzaDem]

27. Here's what happened. The filibuster has not ended -- just a particular kind of dilatory tactic.

Normally, when the Senate voters to end debate on a bill (a cloture vote, which requires 60 votes), there are 30 hours left of debate.

During these 30 hours, amendments are quite limited. Any amendment must be germane to the bill -- it cannot be unrelated to the content of the bill. This has been the case for over three decades (if not longer).

Republicans wanted to offer a non-germane amendment. But they could not do it in the traditional way, since cloture was already invoked.

Instead, they scoured the rulebook, and found a way to do it. They would offer a motion to "suspend the rules" and vote on a non-germane amendment. This motion would almost surely fail, but the vote on the suspension of the rules motion would be considered a vote for the amendment. So it would essentially allow the Republicans to offer unlimited unrelated amendments after cloture was invoked.

This Republican tactic was technically within the letter of the Senate rules. But it was really a loophole -- the clear intent of the Senate rules is to prohibit unrelated amendments after debate has ended. To my knowledge, this is one of the first times (if not the first time) this loophole has ever been used like this.

So Reid apparently has had it with the minority finding technical loopholes to violate the spirit of the rules. He asked for a ruling of the chair that the Republicans' tactic was dilatory (which would kill it). The Senate parliamentarian said no, confirming that what the Republicans were trying to do was consistent with the letter of the Senate rules.

Normally, that would end the matter. But in this case, Reid took a very rarely used move to essentially appeal the ruling of the parliamentarian. He only needed a simple majority to prevail, and he got 51 votes. This essentially changes the Senate rules from this point forward.

The reason that this is a moderately big deal is that Senate rules changes are supposed to require 67 votes. Changing them with a simple majority (by appealing rulings of the parliamentarian) is considered a "nuclear option" of sorts. The same tactic could theoretically be used to end the filibuster altogether (though Reid did not do that).

The nuclear option (changing the rules with a simple majority) is not unprecedented, however. It was used a hundred years ago to lower the threshold of cloture from 100 to 67, and again to 60 in 1975. In 1979, it was also essentially used to deal with a similar situation, where two Senators filed hundreds of amendments after cloture had been invoked. (That's when the current rules for post-cloture debate were established. They apparently missed the loophole that the Republicans are using today.) So it isn't an unprecedented step -- just a rarely used one.

[Zorra]

30. Thanks. So Sen Reid could have invoked the nuclear option to end republican

filibusters back in 2009?

Just asking, because you seem to have a good grasp of senate procedure.

[BzaDem]

32. Yes. This has also been true for all past leaders since 1806.

Nothing Constitutionally prevents a majority from junking any rule they wish.

But getting rid of the filibuster entirely hasn't happened for 200 years (even though both parties had the raw power to do so when they controlled the Senate). You can think of the right to filibuster as a long-observed norm, rather than an explicit Constitutional rule.

[Zorra]

34. Thanks, that's what I thought. nt

[Volaris]

31. So what Reid did was deploy

a TACTICAL Nuclear weapon, rather than a Strategic one... Well, I say good call on his part, and I say the Senate has one deep (and at times deeply FUCKED UP) system of getting things done.

[Angry Dragon]

33. time for:

:popcorn:

[Better Believe It]

36. And more than a few people insisted the Democrats could not stop Republican filibusters in 2009/2010

Remember those posts?

[Tx4obama]

37. So, basically all this does is prevent unlimited amount of motions for amendments to be introduced.

Amendments that have 'nothing' to do with the bill that has had cloture invoked.

That is how the rules should have been to begin with :)

Once cloture is invoked (with 60 yes votes) there will still be 30 hours of debate and then a final vote on a bill.

[BlueCheese]

38. From the one article I read...

... it sounds like they changed the rules on how amendments are considered after a filibuster has been defeated. The China currency bill defeated a filibuster by a 62-38 vote; apparently the Republicans then wanted a bunch of procedural votes on something or another that would cause delays. Reid and the Democrats said forget it.

So it doesn't really affect the filibuster, as it only affects things after a filibuster has been defeated. On the other hand, the idea that one party might change the rules unilaterally is apparently a big deal. So it's more like dropping a nuclear bomb on some target of minor importance. It doesn't do much damage, but it signals a certain willingness to break out the heavy weaponry.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Why the FUCK has he waited until October of 2011 to grow a god-damn spine?

Anything they do now they could have done in February of 2009, when we still had the House. Jesus fucking Christ.

Sure, they'll eliminate the filibuster, just in time for the GOP to take over the Senate. I'm sorry, but we should have picked a different majority leader.

[Inuca]

40. A very good explanation

of what happened, the context, and the implications http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/senate-nuclear-option-filibuster-reid-mcconnell-vote.php?ref=fpb