US Senate "nuclear option" discussion comes up again

[Double Trouble]

Every time power changes hands in the senate, the party in power laments the fact that the other guys use the filibuster to obstruct. They don't want to deal with needing 60 votes to get anything controversial done, so they want to change the procedures so a simple majority will suffice -- the nuclear option.

The R's wanted to do it when GWB was in power, the D's wanted to do it with Obama in the Oval Office. In 2013 a limited version of the nuclear option took effect for judicial nominations other than the supreme court justices.

Now with Trump poised to take over the white house with a republican majority in the senate, it seems very likely that the democrats will use the filibuster often to try to stop Trump from tearing out things like ACA, undoing other legislation passed over the past 8 years, or nominating candidates to fill scotus positions. The republicans are already talking of putting the nuclear option back into play. That would essentially render the minority party in the senate for the most part obsolete.

Lest the democrats clutch their pearls about the R's doing that, Tim Kaine (obviously feeling confident Hillary would win the election and the democrats would gain a majority in the senate) openly talked about using the nuclear option in Jan 17 to remove the R obstruction.

My take is that removing the filibuster is a very bad idea, no matter which party is doing it. Sooner or later, the tables turn and you find yourself on the other side of the table as the minority party in the senate with no voice at all.

It seems the siren song of the nuclear option is simply too hard to resist. It will be interesting to see if the R's can resist the temptation to use it in 2017......

 

[cubby1223]

yea... the Dems will surpass the mark and become the new powerhouse in using the filibuster. But this time around, it will be rationalized that the filibuster is an important tool to protect the citizens from the government.

 

[Double Trouble]

yea... the Dems will surpass the mark and become the new powerhouse in using the filibuster. But this time around, it will be rationalized that the filibuster is an important tool to protect the citizens from the government.

It will also be interesting to see if people's positions will now be flipped. There are many posters in here who were very happy with the R's filibustering everything to stop the Obama agenda. Will they now be just as OK with the D's doing the same to stop the Trump agenda? Conversely, will those who derided the R's for abusing the filibuster and not doing their jobs now say the same about the D's when they go nuts with the filibuster?

Interesting times.

 

[ivwshane]

Personally I think the dems should simply get out of the way, just let the repubs pass whatever they want, vote present or not at all. The only thing I thing they should obstruct is the supreme court and all other openings of various federal courts, unless the repubs nominate moderate people.

The repubs control 90% of government right now so obviously that's what the people want and dems should give it to them.

 

[Balt]

It's going to be a 'big fucking deal' as Joe Biden would say, if the Democrats actually grow some balls and use it. Particularly when it comes to SC advice and consent.

Republicans denied Garland consideration for almost a year. How long will Democrats deny one?

 

[glenn1]

It will also be interesting to see if people's positions will now be flipped. There are many posters in here who were very happy with the R's filibustering everything to stop the Obama agenda. Will they now be just as OK with the D's doing the same to stop the Trump agenda? Conversely, will those who derided the R's for abusing the filibuster and not doing their jobs now say the same about the D's when they go nuts with the filibuster?

Interesting times.

It's somewhat natural for people's opinions to be influenced by self-interest. I'd rather keep the filibuster but see the arguments for modifying or eliminating it. The optimal solution would be to build new constitutional controls to prevent abuses like not fulfilling the Senate's "advise and consent" function but for regular legislation then let them filibuster away. This is where the ban on earmarks really hurts however because it really reduces the options for the majority to offer sweeteners to the opposition to get deals done.

 

[Double Trouble]

Personally I think the dems should simply get out of the way, just let the repubs pass whatever they want, vote present or not at all. The only thing I thing they should obstruct is the supreme court and all other openings of various federal courts, unless the repubs nominate moderate people.

The repubs control 90% of government right now so obviously that's what the people want and dems should give it to them.

Well, they can't obstruct openings of various federal courts, that was part of the 2013 change. I believe a simple majority can be used for those. SCOTUS nominations were excluded.

The R's refused to vote on Garland based on a bullshit "wait for the election" reason. What logical reason could the D's possibly use to justify not acting on scotus nominees now? Maybe if Trump nominates some really horrible person for the court, but if they go that route, I'm certain the R's will implement the nuclear option to get their justices in. Hell, if things get ugly enough, they might change the court from 9 to 11 justices just to be able to add some more.

I'm very concerned about where all these shenanigans will lead, people just seem to have a hard time keeping the long term picture in mind when making such decisions.

 

[Maxima1]

It will also be interesting to see if people's positions will now be flipped. There are many posters in here who were very happy with the R's filibustering everything to stop the Obama agenda. Will they now be just as OK with the D's doing the same to stop the Trump agenda? Conversely, will those who derided the R's for abusing the filibuster and not doing their jobs now say the same about the D's when they go nuts with the filibuster?

Interesting times.

Republicans didn't want to spend money during a recession. That's retarded, yet when they get in power with control in the chambers, they deficit spend even more than Democrats. The only thing that could potentially prevent that is the Peterson types, but it's obvious that the others are fine with screwing with macro policy to try to make Dems lose reelection (i.e. economy stays *****).

The repubs control 90% of government right now so obviously that's what the people want and dems should give it to them.

That's not what people want. You can easily see it in the polls. Campaign finance, for example, has an >80% approval for reform. Minimum wage likewise has a giant approval rating even with as high as $12. What happened is that people blame the party with the presidency, generally, and it hurt Democrats' position in the Senate and House. Republicans didn't want to spend. McConnell wanted to make him a "1 term president. That all helped in making for stagnant economy.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's going to be a 'big fucking deal' as Joe Biden would say, if the Democrats actually grow some balls and use it. Particularly when it comes to SC advice and consent.

Republicans denied Garland consideration for almost a year. How long will Democrats deny one?

That depends on how Repubs play it. Trump can offer up some not too far right of center nominee that Dems will be forced to accept or start a fight with the equivalent of Robert Bork. Dems care about the Hostage, the institution of the SCOTUS, rather than pure partisanship. The record shows it.

Look for Senatorial Dems to obstruct when it comes to financial deregulation, the ACA & cuts to social welfare programs.