Nuclear Option 2005

The "nuclear option" is not the same thing as changing the rules of the Senate. It was an almost-attempted end-around on the procedure in place to govern the rules. And Democrats aren't calling for the abolition of the filibuster (and certainly aren't threatening the "nuclear option"), but they want some rule changes to make the Senate workable again, since the current GOP practice of filibustering everything is preventing anything from happening.

Equivalence fail.

 

ditto.

 

I generally don't click on DailyKos links.




Or anything like them.

 

Everything's been addressed, but still... find another site anyhow. Michael Eric Dyson's already taken Breitbart out behind the woodpile and beaten him with a stick.

 

I debated posting a kitten in response to this thread. I have a really great picture sitting in reserve.

But instead let's get a few things straight here:

* "Reconciliation" is a budgeting process that allows bills meeting certain criteria to pass through the Senate without a cloture vote (and hence, by majority rule).

* What Trent Lott called "The Nuclear Option," and what was previously and is elsewhere known as "The Constitutional Option" is a parliamentary strategy for abolishing the filibuster by declaring it unconstitutional by a majority vote.

* None of the various ideas out there about changing Senate rules to modify the filibuster are properly called the Nuclear or Constitutional Option.

Many Dems are looking to use the reconciliation process to pass legislation.

Some Dems are talking about using the Constitutional Option to abolish the filibuster.

Some Dems are looking to change the Senate rules on the filibuster.

So, yes, the video is lame. Bush used reconciliation all the time. The Dems should use it more. None of that has anything directly actually to do with the filibuster. But it's not like some Dems aren't talking about abolishing the filibuster -- and, frankly, they should!

 

No.

I was imprecise. I'm sure there are some Dems talking about abolishing the filibuster, and even using the "nuclear option". Congressional leadership are not amongst that group.

Personally, I think an argument can be made that Senate rules should be modified to either weaken the filibuster, or even remove it altogether. I'm not really a fan of using the Constitutional Option loophole to do so, as opposed to modifying Senate rules the "normal" way.

Of course, given the fact that the Party of No is saying no to everything, there's no way they'd ever agree to amend Senate rules the "legitimate" way.

(I didn't make it thru the entire video. I got bored, and the silly and inaccurate opening text gave me little incentive to stick with it.)

 

And there's debate about what exactly the "normal" way requires -- for instance, it would seem that on the opening day of the session they could change the rules on a strict majority vote. After that it'd arguably take 2/3rds. I suspect the reality is the Constitutional Option is the only practical way to do this.

One these matters: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45448.pdf

 

Thinking isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

 

The problem is that the Senate is broken. Perhaps irreparably so. And the problem wasn't Democrats filibustering a couple of judicial nominees; it's Republicans filibustering everything in sight. What happens when the GOP takes control again, be it next year or in 20 years? I can't see it getting better.

I think something needs to be done. We can't continue with the set up we have now. I think GOP demonizing has absolutely broken our government. When you call the other guys agents of Satan, you leave yourself no room for compromise.

 

You let them govern. Novel concept, I know ...

 

Right, but will it happen? These things tend to escalate, and rarely de-escalate.

 

The GOP is the party of no. That in no way hides the fact that the Dems are pitifully ineffective.

Yes, that's why things like the public option are wildly popular. In fact, the Dem agenda is quite popular. The problem is that the Dems are too scared to pass their agenda -- because, as others have noted recently, they've got the mentality of born losers. Now the washed out, watered down legislative crap the Dems are actually talking about passing is, however, unpopular. No mystery about why ...

No, what's really been happening is that the Dems say if we put your proposal into the bill, will you vote for it and the GOP says no. So the Dems say, rightfully, f'ck that.

I don't disagree. But you should be less of simpleton.

 

Run the chamber on majority rule and things will change radically. The problem now is that the opposition party not only has an incentive to block all of the majority party's legislation, but they pretty much always can. (Even when the Dems had 60, in reality, because of a Lieberman and a few others, they could.) But go on majority rule, which means some legislation will most likely pass and the minority party's incentive changes from block all of the majority party's legislation to modify and temper the majority party's legislation.

In other words, right now you've got a system that encourage a zero-sum partisan game: kill the majority party's bills. But doing away with the filibuster, because it would be harder to kill bills outright, would (ironically) actually probably encourage bipartisan behavior.

 

Okay, can someone explain to me why, instead of going right to a cloture vote, the Dems don't make the Republicans actually filibuster? Like in the old days when they read the phone book or whatever to fill up time?

Am I misunderstanding how this is supposed to work?

 

I agree. It's unfortunate that the GOP would just say "no". It's probably likely that the only way to get rid of the filibuster (certainly while the Dems hold the majority) would be the constitutional option.

 

How about "the party of overweight, closeted, angry white males?"

 

Bottom line, because the rules changed. This is really worth reading: http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=227

Shame or not, they have every incentive to say no to everything -- because they're rewarded for killing everything they can. That's the real problem. Abolish the filibuster and those incentives will change too. If you can't kill the bill and you just say no, then you're irrelevant. Nobody wants to run on being irrelevant, so there's an incentive to cooperate.

 

My understanding is that the current Senate rules mean that, even if the Dems stopped accepting filibuster-via-email, votes could still be blocked by a procedural move involving calling for a quorum count. Rinse and repeat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

Of course, I still think there would be some benefit in forcing that. It wouldn't be as absurd, but it would be pretty easy to demonstrate (via some simple video editing) the blatant obstructionism.

 

ITN at least gave some content when he was our whipping boy. Steamer is just a drooling trig.