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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:12 PM Apr 2017

No nuclear option? 2/3 majority vote is needed to change Senate procedure and override a filibuster

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/326423-what-if-theres-no-nuclear-option

In the absence of a plausible constitutional issue raised by the Gorsuch filibuster, the 2013 precedent is simply inapplicable. If the Republicans, nevertheless, insist on invoking the Nixon rule, respect for Rule XXII mandates that, in the absence of plausible allegations of unconstitutional abuse, the scripted point of order at the heart of the nuclear option be sustained by 2/3 of the senators present and voting before it morphs into a binding Senate precedent. At a minimum, unlike the sleepy Republicans in 2013, the Democratic Senate leadership should counter with points-of-order demanding debate on any appeal to the Senate that does not require a 2/3 vote.


Basically, the normal procedure can only be done if the Dems are doing something *unconsitutional* with their filibuster. And it's doesn't seem like they are doing that.
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No nuclear option? 2/3 majority vote is needed to change Senate procedure and override a filibuster (Original Post) Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 OP
If it comes down to "respect" for a rule . . . gratuitous Apr 2017 #1
well definitely the GOP is behaving very badly, as is typical for them Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #8
How did we do it to stop the obstruction of Obama justices? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #2
the idea is that what the GOP did in 2013 was unconstitutional-- blocking all those judges Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #4
I meant how did we get 2/3 to change the rule? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #5
Right, accoridng to the piece we used a simple majority but had a justification Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #7
Thing is SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2017 #10
that's true, but that's how the Senate rule is constructed. The key question is whether McConnell Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #12
what "constitutional right" to mount a filibuster? onenote Apr 2017 #18
This is only one person's opinion (Burt Neuborne) red dog 1 Apr 2017 #3
obviously McConnell could be an ass, and probably will be. The main point was that the Dems Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #6
I'm going to ask what may be a very stupid question, but here goes ProudLib72 Apr 2017 #9
It's not stupid... so in this case, it would be McConnell, and almost certainly he will claim Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #11
Can a case be made in court that might be settled by the Supremes? Vinca Apr 2017 #13
These are more Senate procedures than Federal law, but who knows Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #14
So apparently Federal courts can rule on Congressional procedures Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #15
So there's crumb of hope. Vinca Apr 2017 #16
not if Gorsuch is one of them. Amaryllis Apr 2017 #17
No. The Court will not intervene in a question that concerns Senate rules onenote Apr 2017 #19
Anyway, it's all moot now, the GOP nuked it, as basically predicted Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #20

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
1. If it comes down to "respect" for a rule . . .
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:21 PM
Apr 2017

I'm afraid Senate Republicans have long since scrubbed any trace of that from their governing philosophy.

But wouldn't it be delicious if the Senate's own rules stop the Republicans from ending the filibuster? If that happens, I have a few choice words I would like to express to the concerned pundits who were very concerned that Democratic stubbornness was going to be the death of the filibuster, and wouldn't it be a good idea to keep our powder dry for a battle that was really worth fighting, so the Republicans could nuke the filibuster then?

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
8. well definitely the GOP is behaving very badly, as is typical for them
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 07:03 PM
Apr 2017

and McConnell will likely just go nuclear without the proper justification

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
2. How did we do it to stop the obstruction of Obama justices?
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:21 PM
Apr 2017

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe there are two sides anymore.

Our side arent killers and thieves, their side is, so it is NEVER about two sides anymore.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
4. the idea is that what the GOP did in 2013 was unconstitutional-- blocking all those judges
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 06:55 PM
Apr 2017

appointed by Obama for no reason-- so it fit into Nixon's idea of a nuclear option used to overcome unconstitutionality.

Here, the Dems are exercising their constitutional rights to mount a filibuster.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
5. I meant how did we get 2/3 to change the rule?
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 06:58 PM
Apr 2017

I assume we couldnt get 2/3, so I am hoping that is the requirement here as they cant either.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
7. Right, accoridng to the piece we used a simple majority but had a justification
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 07:01 PM
Apr 2017

to act extra-constitutionally because the GOP was not following the constitution.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
12. that's true, but that's how the Senate rule is constructed. The key question is whether McConnell
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 07:28 AM
Apr 2017

will bother with the rules, or follow even a figleaf of them.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
18. what "constitutional right" to mount a filibuster?
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:09 PM
Apr 2017

The Senate rules allow a filibuster. The Constitution nowhere requires it.

red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
3. This is only one person's opinion (Burt Neuborne)
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:52 PM
Apr 2017

Near the end of his Opinion Piece, Neuborne writes:
"Democratic Senate leadership should counter with points-of-order demanding debate on any appeal to the Senate that does not require a 2/3 vote."

Couldn't McTurtle merely slam down his gavel on any such point-of-order "demanding debate"?

If so, what good would any such action accomplish?
(Perhaps it would make the Turtle so mad he might "come undone" if 20 or 30 Senate Dems tried this?)

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
6. obviously McConnell could be an ass, and probably will be. The main point was that the Dems
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 06:59 PM
Apr 2017

were responding in an extra-constitutional way to an extra-constitutional ploy used by the GOP to block Obama's judges. I.e., they had some sort of legal justification.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
9. I'm going to ask what may be a very stupid question, but here goes
Wed Apr 5, 2017, 07:14 PM
Apr 2017

Who decides if there is unconstitutional abuse?

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
11. It's not stupid... so in this case, it would be McConnell, and almost certainly he will claim
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 07:24 AM
Apr 2017

it's unconstitutional abuse. So yeah, it's gonna happen, almost certainly.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
19. No. The Court will not intervene in a question that concerns Senate rules
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:11 PM
Apr 2017

The Senate didn't have to allow filibusters and can interpret its rules relating to filibusters and other rules as it wishes. The judicial branch will not get involved. Cases in which the courts have ruled on whether the House or Senate have followed its rules are readily distinguishable from this one.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No nuclear option? 2/3 ma...