Harry Reid to Invoke “Nuclear Option,” a Fate Worse Than Reading Explanation?

[Norm dePlume]

Here we go...

Harry Reid to Invoke “Nuclear Option,” a Fate Worse Than Reading Explanation of “Nuclear Option”?

Blockbuster congressional procedural news this morning! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, “furious that Republicans have thwarted the [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals] nominations of Robert Wilkins, Nina Pillard and Patricia Millette”—“I mean, Wilkins I obviously understand, but Millette?” said most Americans—is reportedly considering a change to the rules that “would eliminate filibusters on all executive nominees as well as all judicial nominees, except those to the Supreme Court,” Politico reports. This is known as “the nuclear option.”

Enter: one of the lengthiest and least interesting Wikipedia pages we have ever attempted to read. Linguistic Ambien, this: [should we quote so much if we call it highly boring? Just feel like people will leave the post at this point]

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 . . .

[Norm dePlume]

Mitch McConnell had this to say on the subject (paraphrased):

Obamacare Obamacare, Obamacare Obamacare Obamacare. Obamacare Obamacare Obamacare Obamacare -- Obamacare! Obamacare Obamacare Obamacare; Obamacare Obamacare Obamacare Obamacare. Obamacare Obamacare? Obamacare!

[Adam]

I remember back when Democrats and the Left insisted that the so-called "nuclear option" was just a terrible, awful thing to do.

Of course, this was a time when the same bunch cried and howled for "oversight." Now they want none of that, since the most transparent administration in history is in the White House.

[Billy Jingo]

I remember back when Democrats and the Left insisted that the so-called "nuclear option" was just a terrible, awful thing to do.

And the right called it the "Constitutional Option."

For my part, I think it is a terrible idea. How about you?

[Adam]

And the right called it the "Constitutional Option."

For my part, I think it is a terrible idea. How about you?

I'd just as soon see the "procedural filibuster" go away.

[Billy Jingo]

I'd just as soon see the "procedural filibuster" go away.

Do you support the Majority Leader's actions if he goes through with them as reported?

[Adam]

Do you support the Majority Leader's actions if he goes through with them as reported?

I would always prefer that rules changes occur inter-session, ideally between Presidents. But, if Dingy Harry wants to own this, I have no particular opposition. The GOP in the Senate has already shown a willingness and ability to do a filibuster the correct way, so while it may be more difficult for them to block nominations and force Obama and the Democrats to the bargaining table, I don't think that they'll be deterred. The other side of that coin is that Reid and the Democrats are going to come off looking like sore losers who "cheat" to get what they want by changing the rules in the middle of the game. That suits me just fine with eleven months until mid-terms and at least seven Democrats potentially in jeopardy in the Senate and virtually no chance that the Republicans would lose a seat.

So it's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose from my perspective.

[Norm dePlume]

Most of the discussion gets the scale of this thing all wrong.

Mitch McConnell is fixated on Obamacare. His attitude is Obamacare bad -- we should stop it.

Harry Reid is fixated on filibusters of judicial appointees. His attitude is these filibusters are bad -- we should stop them.

The news will waste a bunch of time trying to explain the nuts and bolts of the arcane parliamentary procedures by which they would carry out this thing.

But the net effect is this: The Senate operates by rules -- we should stop that.

It's not about filibusters. It's not about appointees. It's not about underlying agendas. It's about the process by which the Senate sets its rules, and whether that process can be reduced to "whatever the majority wants to do today."

[Billy Jingo]

I would always prefer that rules changes occur inter-session, ideally between Presidents. But, if Dingy Harry wants to own this, I have no particular opposition. The GOP in the Senate has already shown a willingness and ability to do a filibuster the correct way, so while it may be more difficult for them to block nominations and force Obama and the Democrats to the bargaining table, I don't think that they'll be deterred. The other side of that coin is that Reid and the Democrats are going to come off looking like sore losers who "cheat" to get what they want by changing the rules in the middle of the game. That suits me just fine with eleven months until mid-terms and at least seven Democrats potentially in jeopardy in the Senate and virtually no chance that the Republicans would lose a seat.

So it's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose from my perspective.

I think it is a bad idea. For many reasons.

But that aside, I think McConnell convinced Reid to throw him in that briar patch. That was the only reason for the wholly unprecedented abuse of procedure by the Republican leadership.

[Adam]

Well, he did it. 52-48, so there were at least some Democrats who defected. I haven't found the roll call yet, but it will be interesting to see who defected. Obviously some of them realize that this spells the Democrats' doom for the next few elections.

[Billy Jingo]

Well, he did it. 52-48, so there were at least some Democrats who defected. I haven't found the roll call yet, but it will be interesting to see who defected. Obviously some of them realize that this spells the Democrats' doom for the next few elections.

Doubtful.

What is spells is Republicans getting to use the procedure through most of Obama's presidency that will be denied to a Democratic minority in the future; by their own actions.

[Adam]

I think it is a bad idea. For many reasons.

You think the simple majority confirmations are a bad idea? Or you think that doing this now is a bad idea?

But that aside, I think McConnell convinced Reid to throw him in that briar patch. That was the only reason for the wholly unprecedented abuse of procedure by the Republican leadership.

Could be, and if so, McConnell is smarter than I have previously given him credit. I suspect that a lot of it is just payback from the early 2000's, and they're going to just make Obama hurt as much as they can. They're the opposition party, after all, and the opposition party does that; it's hardly like the Democrats didn't do the same thing with the same goal when Bush was in the White House. Obama's own intransigence from day 1, though, has bred an awful lot of bad blood, I think particularly in the Senate. I doubt it will get any better before Obama leaves office.

[scott]

Here we go...

Reid and the Democrats must really think they have nothing to lose now.

The turnabout on this is going to be a real bitch. The establishment Republicans are just licking their chops now.

[Billy Jingo]

You think the simple majority confirmations are a bad idea? Or you think that doing this now is a bad idea?

I think eliminating the filibuster of nominees (however it is being done) is a bad idea.

Could be, and if so, McConnell is smarter than I have previously given him credit. I suspect that a lot of it is just payback from the early 2000's, and they're going to just make Obama hurt as much as they can. They're the opposition party, after all, and the opposition party does that; it's hardly like the Democrats didn't do the same thing with the same goal when Bush was in the White House. Obama's own intransigence from day 1, though, has bred an awful lot of bad blood, I think particularly in the Senate. I doubt it will get any better before Obama leaves office.

Count the filibusters and get back to me on that.

Regardless, it was clear that whole and complete opposition to the president was the Republican plan; even if he agreed with them. It worked. I hope the Democrats don't use it when a Republican is elected.

[scott]

I think eliminating the filibuster of nominees (however it is being done) is a bad idea.



Count the filibusters and get back to me on that.

Regardless, it was clear that whole and complete opposition to the president was the Republican plan; even if he agreed with them. It worked. I hope the Democrats don't use it when a Republican is elected.

The scoreboard is 89 for the Republicans and 63 for the Democrats. So go ahead and tell us that Democrats' use was rare.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/02/let_the_majority_rule.html