The Nuclear Option -- come on, Harry, do it.

[travelingtypist]

This is nuts. Just plain nuts. Change the fucking Senate rules and end this.

[Sgent]

1. It requires 2/3 vote

to change the rules.

The reason it was *possibly* an option with judicial nominations is that the rule is unclear when it comes to those (vs. other types of bills), and had not been traditionally used for such.

I doubt you'll find more than a handful of senators looking to overturn the filibuster generally.

[travelingtypist]

2. Not necessarily. Only where the Constitution specifies.

According to the Democrats, arguments that a simple majority should prevail apply equally well to all votes where the Constitution does not specify a three-fifths majority. Republicans state that there is a difference between the filibustering of legislation -- which affects only the Senate's own constitutional prerogative to consider new laws -- and the filibustering of a President's judicial or executive nominees, which arguably impinges on the constitutional powers of the Executive branch.

This is parliamentary.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Kick and rec, more people need to see this! n/t

[ixion]

4. no. not now. not ever. it was bad when rethugs threatened it, and it's no different now.

if anything, the concept of a "nuclear" option should be removed altogether.

[lonestarnot]

5. Nope piglicons own this shock and awe business. Let everyone see how smart they are.

:rofl: