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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

red dog 1

(27,792 posts)

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

Reply to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

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?)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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