In the light of recent Republican minority blocks to important bills, some Kossacks are wondering if the Senate Dems should turn the tables and invoke the "nuclear option."
There's a legitimate debate to be had as to whether this is the right thing to do, with good arguments on both sides.
Trouble is, they CAN'T. They don't have the votes.
Really. Not the pretend "we don't have the votes" that people are using to explain their inability to de-fund the war. A for-real, we-can't-pass-this, don't have the votes.
At issue is Senate Rule XXII, which states that for most bills, a supermajority of 60 is required to force "cloture", i.e., an end to debate so the bill can be voted.
This is nothing but a rule. It's not in the Consititution, it's not even a law. The irony is that while 60 votes are required to force cloture on a bill, only a simple majority is required to make or amend a Senate rule.
The Republicans in the last Congress realized this. They figured they had 50 Republican votes that would approve this rule change, that the 49 Dems + Bernie Sanders would oppose it, and that "Stealth Fourth Branch" Cheney ex machina would cast the deciding vote as the President of the Senate. Presto, no Rule XXII.
They used the very threat of this as a way to force key concessions from the Dems. (Funny how all they need is the threat--just as in the current Congress they don't actually have to filibuster to get the Dems to back down.)
Fast forward to the present Congress. The tables are turned, and the minority Republicans are blocking bills right and left, becuase they want more troops to die or because they hate our freedoms or whatever. So understandably frustrated Dems want to revisit rulke XXII.
As I said, there are strong arguments on all sides, and the debate is much older than the Iraq war. Hendrik Hertzberg, for one, is a progressive who has long opposed rule XXII. It has been used infamously, as when Southern Democrats blocked the landmark Civil Rights Bill for years, and a federal anti-lynch law for, well, forever. (It never passed, after decades of attempts.) On the other hand, a prinicpled minority can stand up to a foolish, short-sighted majority, as when a minority of Dems in 2005 bravely blocked the Republican attempt to undo 800 years of legal precedent by revoking the right of habeas corpus. Oh, wait...
But all arguments aside, the Dems don't have the votes. Just pretend, for a nanosecond, that Senate Dems would all march in lock-step on this (which would never happen--there are serious arguments on both sides, and Dems do not exhibit lemming-like parliamentary behavios like the GOP). But even with the 48 Dems + Bernie Sanders, we're one vote short.
Or in other words: dear old Joltin' Joe Lieberman is not 100% irrelevant just yet. He would NEVER vote to support the Dems on this.
IANAPS (I am not a Political Scientist) but is there anything incorrect in my assessment here? Of course it's possible a Repub or two would vote to kill Rule XXII on general principle, but at least as many Dems would go the other way.