A Question: On changing the rule for a cloture vote from 60 votes to a simple majority?

[kentuck]

After McConnell fails to get the cloture vote to stop debate, he will need to get a vote to change the rule so that Gorsuch can be put on the Court with a simple majority.

The question is: Can the Democrats require 60-votes to change the rule?

[LOL Lib]

1. Damn that's a good question.

Wonder if there is even a vote needed since their is precedent?

[kentuck]

2. I saw a crawler at bottom of screen on CNN...

that McConnell was getting ready for the vote on the rule change if cloture fails?

[LOL Lib]

4. Sounds promising imo! I thought the nuclear option was something TURTLE

could "invoke." That is why I thought there might not be a vote. Thx kentuck!

[kentuck]

3. I found this on Google: I don't know if it has changed??

"Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" – 67 or more votes) to end debate on a change to the Senate rules."

(on edit) I think this may be where an earlier poster referred to the beginning of a new Congress as the time to change the "rules"?

[LOL Lib]

5. Interesting stuff.

I personally care less about Gursuck than I do about the erosion of long standing senate rules. That's just me personally. I really don't want to see this rule changed. Of course denying Gorsuck AND keeping the rule is a win win for sure.

[LOL Lib]

6. Kentuck, I found this and I think it answers your question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

A simple majority vote of 51 is needed to do away with the old rule of 60 for confirmation. So we would need 3 upstanding constitutional repukes.

[kentuck]

7. Thanks!

"The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes. The option is invoked by the presiding officer of the United States Senate ruling that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. The issue is immediately put to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules, such as current Senate rules specifying that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare."
====================

The over-ride of Senate rules seems more serious than the simple over-ride of a 60-vote total to stop debate??

[grantcart]

8. That's why it is called "Nuclear"

[LOL Lib]

9. Agreed! I think that might be where the precedent

Set by Harry Reid comes in. I, like you, still don't think it should apply to a SCJ confirmation rule. Lower courts yes maybe. The Supreme Court vote is more important and shouldn't be changed! It's not the same as ending a debate on a bill. It's far more important!

[kentuck]

10. The Senate will never be the same.

I think that is fair to say.

What happens if the Democrats just shut down the Senate?

[LOL Lib]

11. I don't think the repukes could do anything

If Dems just created chaos every day. I really don't know the answer. I'm a virtual idiot about politics. I wish I had taken more govt law classes.
Have a good night kentuck, maybe someone with the right answer will enlighten us.

[MedusaX]

12. Parliamentary Rule designed for use by legitimate parliamentarians

The nuclear capability is reserved for instances in which a genuine upstanding head of a lawmaking body finds it necessary to make a
"...ruling that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question."

It was not intended to be used by selfish whiny little bullies who stomp their feet, cross their arms, and demand to get their way....

I hardly believe that the current circumstances-- the lack of sufficient bi-partisan support for a nominee &/or the exercising of a valid strategy (filibuster) to express opposition to a nominee -- truly meet the standard necessary for exercising the nuclear option....as neither are a "constitutional question".

[LOL Lib]

13. So...could the Supreme Court be used by Dems to "decide" if this

Is constitutional? Please forgive if that's a completely ignorant question. I am truly stupid in regards to politics and have learned more on this forum than my 18 years of schooling.

[madville]

14. No

The 60 vote threshold is just a Senate rule, nothing in the Constitution about it at all. Unfortunately the Democratic controlled Senate set the most recent precedent for this just a few years ago when they discarded the 60-vote requirement for federal judges. Trump and the Republican Senate can now run through tons of federal judges with a simple majority already. The Supreme Court Jusice just erodes the power of the minority a little further but we won't be in the minority forever, probably just 2-4 more years.