Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans pile on more executive nominee filibusters (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not only, but ... (10+ / 0-)
    ... it's an institution that's been deliberately broken by the minority.
    also through the enablement and collusion of the majority.  At this point, I don't hold the Repubs responsible.  It would be like blaming a wolf for killing an antelope.  You can't, it's what they do.  The blame at this point rests solely on the Democrats.  They could stop it, but they don't.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:38:21 AM PDT

    •  Would someone please explain to me (4+ / 0-)

      how filibuster rules can be changed in mid-session without a 2/3 vote by the senate?  Reid can't do it alone; even a majority vote by Democrats couldn't do it, according to the rules of the Senate.  And every Democrat is not going to vote to do away with or even moderate the filibuster rules, because they're scared to death that the Republicans will take over control of the Senate and impose the changed rules on them.

      What these Democrats don't understand is that the Republicans would have no problem enacting the "nuclear option" on the filibuster as soon as they control the Senate anyway.  They keep hoping against hope for comity - which ain't happening with the current crop of Republicans and those who are likely to be elected anytime soon.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:50:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's called the Constitutional Option (5+ / 0-)

        where the Senate President (Joe Biden) declares a filibuster to be out of order, refers it to the Senate Parlimentarian for a ruling, and if that ruling goes the wrong way, simply overrules the Parlimentatrian.

        Basically, Senate rules cannot trump the Constitution, and the Constitution has very specific limits on types of votes requiring a super-majority (treaties & such, not judges or cabinet members).

        It would be a dramatic & historic step - and is the very thing  Republicans threatened to do in 2006 when they had the majority and the White House.

        Filibuster reform, 2013 - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

        by bear83 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:11:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  since the Senate sets and enforces its (5+ / 0-)

        own rules, only 51 votes are required to change them, no matter what the previous rules say.

        Remember, the rules are nothing more than points of order that 51 Senators agree to follow each day. The rules are unenforceable gentlemen's agreement.

        If the Senators decided to ignore the previous rules and vote directly on a confirmation, bypassing the committees and filibusters, that person would be approved, because the Constitution only says that 51 votes are required to approve.

        The filibuster only works because each day 51 Senators agree never to hold the real, Constitutional vote until they've count 60 votes. That non-Constitutional 60-vote requirement only works because 51 Senators decide each day to make it so. (That 60 vote requirement morally subverts the Constitution, because the Constitution requires 50 votes, not 60. It's only through collusion that the 60 votes is a requirement.)

    •  Rec'd for: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN
      also through the enablement and collusion of the majority.

      "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

      by gritsngumbo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:59:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site