Reid Nukes Senate

[BvBPL]

Blowing away 200+ years of tradition, Sen. Reid dropped a bomb today when he "reformed" of the US Senate's Rules of Debate. Traditionally, 60 of 100 votes were necessary for cloture in that august body. Today the Senate voted to change the cloture rule to allow closure of debate at a simple majority for many presidential nominations. Old cloture rules still apply to Supreme Court nominations and legislative bills, where appropriate.

Normally a super majority is necessary to change the rules, but Reid figured he wouldn't bother with that either.

The old rules no longer apply, man! They were always like these artificial human constructs that you could just ignore anyway.

Story.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't see the problem, 52-48 majority is fine so as to change things and now merely appoint federal judges (and other top tier officials) for lifelong positions without any practical ability to filibuster.

 

[bhsup]

Unfortunate loss of deliberation, but maybe necessary in these polarized times.

 

[BvBPL]

Unfortunate loss of deliberation, but maybe necessary in these polarized times.

I'm pretty sure they made the same arguments in 1933 Germany.

Burn the Reichstag, nuke the Senate, what's the difference?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't follow. How could one possibly get through with changing anything without having the necessary majority?

 

[Kyriakos]

If you lose some more deliberation, polarisation will go down. If it doesn't, just lose even more deliberation.
In the end it will stop existing, cause people (unlike the senate according to reid) are no longer really a 'living thing'. They are by now mostly pets or less esteemed domesticated organisms of the ruling power.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I liked this part of the Fox article:

While this makes the Senate one of the slowest-moving legislative bodies in the world, it also prevents legislation and appointments from moving too fast.

Yes kids. When everything is too slow, nothing will be too fast. I also like how it is just a matter of speed rather than content.

 

[DinoDoc]

The way things are going with polling in the Senate, I wonder how these people will feel about this in November next year.

 

[DinoDoc]

Unfortunate loss of deliberation, but maybe necessary in these polarized times.

Yes, do the one thing certain to polarize it even more. That will prove the superiority of the forces of Moderation.

 

[downtown]

I think this makes sense, although I imagine it's only a matter of time before this is extended to SCOTUS appointees and certain bills.

Polarization probably isn't going away in the near future, and blanket filibustering on essentially *anybody* kind of defeats the point. I can see how this is going to make a lot of Senators mad and spiteful, but it's probably better public policy. No point in holding up a potentially competent judge just because the losing political party wants to stick a thumb in the eye of the president.

When the Republicans eventually take back the Senate (which probably won't happen in 2014, but I'm sure it will happen someday), I'm quite certain this won't be forgotten though.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, do the one thing certain to polarize it even more. That will prove the superiority of the forces of Moderation.

Time to think outside the box. Obama is above thinking of the good of the political system. Obama is directly thinking of the good of the people. Surely it is shortsighted to be against the people's good, now, isn't it?

*

Funny how changes enabling even bigger a power grab by smaller majorities (?) are being always sold as needed due to horrible circumstances.

 

[DinoDoc]

(which probably won't happen in 2014, but I'm sure it will happen someday),

If the roll out of Obamacare doesn't improve soon, I would expect to see full blown panic in the Senate at the start of the year..

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't follow. How could one possibly get through with changing anything without having the necessary majority?

Is this a common law thingy?

 

[BvBPL]

Reid used a parliamentary run-around to make the rule change without the usually required super-majority.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yeah can you tell me more about this run-around? Where does it come from? What are its conditions?

 

[strijder20]

Not a bad thing. Remember what happens to Poland. In the seventeenth century (or so) every member in the parliament (if you can call it such) was giving a veto, making legislation move at the speed of a dead cheetah.

*Screams as moderators take him away for Polandifying this thread*

 

[BvBPL]

Yeah can you tell me more about this run-around? Where does it come from? What are its conditions?

From Huff Po:
"Normally rules changes in the Senate need 67 votes, but the majority can challenge an existing rule, and if the presiding senator rules against the challenge, the majority can then ask for a vote on the chair's ruling. If a simple majority votes to overrule the chair, it sets a new precedent."

 

[Antilogic]

From the Wonkblog, this is sorely needed. Filibusters used to be a once per year thing. Harry Reid has faced over 400 filibusters since he became majority leader, and broken maybe 150 of them according to the chart in the link.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

From Huff Po:
"Normally rules changes in the Senate need 67 votes, but the majority can challenge an existing rule, and if the presiding senator rules against the challenge, the majority can then ask for a vote on the chair's ruling. If a simple majority votes to overrule the chair, it sets a new precedent."

Thanks. So the 67 required votes doesn't mean a dame if a simple majority says so. So really, a simple majority decideds the rules and more is only required if the simple majority can't be bothered to enforce its power.
Sounds lawful to me. Even if very weird.

 

[BvBPL]

Yeah. I didn't think too hard about the rationalization of the use of the majority to make the rule change (I have a headache and need to reserve what little cognitive ability I have for work), but it struck me that they treated the rule change as a differing interpretation of the rules than a new rule.

Don't take that as Gospel though.