HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No nuclear option? 2/3 ma...

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:12 PM

 

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, 6734 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply 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
gratuitous Apr 2017 #1
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #8
Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #2
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #4
Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #5
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #7
SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2017 #10
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #12
onenote Apr 2017 #18
red dog 1 Apr 2017 #3
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #6
ProudLib72 Apr 2017 #9
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #11
Vinca Apr 2017 #13
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #14
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #15
Vinca Apr 2017 #16
Amaryllis Apr 2017 #17
onenote Apr 2017 #19
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #20

Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:21 PM

1. If it comes down to "respect" for a rule . . .

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 07:03 PM

8. well definitely the GOP is behaving very badly, as is typical for them

 

and McConnell will likely just go nuclear without the proper justification

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:21 PM

2. How did we do it to stop the obstruction of Obama justices?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 06:55 PM

4. the idea is that what the GOP did in 2013 was unconstitutional-- blocking all those judges

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 06:58 PM

5. I meant how did we get 2/3 to change the rule?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 07:01 PM

7. Right, accoridng to the piece we used a simple majority but had a justification

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 09:58 PM

10. Thing is

There is no constitutional right to a filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 07:28 AM

12. that's true, but that's how the Senate rule is constructed. The key question is whether McConnell

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:09 PM

18. what "constitutional right" to mount a filibuster?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 05:52 PM

3. This is only one person's opinion (Burt Neuborne)

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?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 06:59 PM

6. obviously McConnell could be an ass, and probably will be. The main point was that the Dems

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 07:14 PM

9. I'm going to ask what may be a very stupid question, but here goes

Who decides if there is unconstitutional abuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 07:24 AM

11. It's not stupid... so in this case, it would be McConnell, and almost certainly he will claim

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 07:29 AM

13. Can a case be made in court that might be settled by the Supremes?

What a mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 07:33 AM

14. These are more Senate procedures than Federal law, but who knows

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:47 AM

15. So apparently Federal courts can rule on Congressional procedures

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:57 AM

16. So there's crumb of hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:08 PM

17. not if Gorsuch is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:11 PM

19. No. The Court will not intervene in a question that concerns Senate rules

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:35 PM

20. Anyway, it's all moot now, the GOP nuked it, as basically predicted

 

and not even a point was made on constitutional order apparently.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gorsuch-confirmation-filibuster-nuclear-option

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread