Does reforming the filibuster remove a Senator's right to put a hold on any nomination.

[Agnosticsherbet]

Granted, from the Senates own site at Senate.Gov, they admit there is no actual rule in place.

Senate Legislative Process
The practice of "holds" (requests by senators to party leaders to delay floor consideration of legislation or nominations), which is nowhere recognized in Senate rules or precedents and about which little is known with respect to its origins, has become a prominent feature of today's Senate

But it has been used often to stop a nomination. Will Republicans go nuclear with this procedural tool to stop the government from governing? Stay tuned for next week, next month, next year.

Harry, you have the power, make the filibuster go away.

[HERVEPA]

1. I was wondering the same thing.

[Lint Head]

2. The text on Cspan "For certain nominees". End the filibuster rule.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Then holds will still be used.

We will see if this does any good in the short term.

[HERVEPA]

4. Excludes Supreme Court.

[Keefer]

5. If, God forbid,

the pukes regain the majority in the senate in 2014, Reid can still undo this before the new senate is sworn in. No worries!

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. If Harry were to undo this, then the new majority can simply undo-do it.

Bill Frist threatened the Nuclear Option back in 2005, because Democrats were stopping some of Bush's appointments. Democrats at that time opposed the use of the Nuclear option. It takes some of he power away form the minority party in the Senate.

I think Harry should use it, but I also recognize there will be no going back. It will change the balance of power a bit in the US Senate when it comes to Presidential appointments.

My question was about Holds. A hold is not a filibuster. The Senate allows it and I don't see why they could not easily migrate form the filibuster to a hold on people they don't want.