Mitch McConnell triggered the 'nuclear option' again.

[GMDino]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mitch-mcconnell-triggered-nuclear-option-again-here-s-what-means-n990521

Quote:For the second time in Donald Trump's presidency, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has triggered what is known as the "nuclear option."


On Wednesday, McConnell used Senate procedural tactics to bypass a 60-vote threshold required to overcome opposition to slashing the debate time for lower-level executive branch nominations, enabling him to do so with just a simple 51-vote majority, largely along party lines. Later Wednesday, McConnell used the same move to shorten debate time for district court nominations.

McConnell is pulling the lever on the nuclear option to make it so that non-Cabinet-level executive and district court nominations need only two hours of floor debate rather than the existing 30 hours of debate before a final confirmation vote is held.


Republicans tried to pass a resolution requiring as much on Tuesday, but the measure got just 51 of the 60 votes required for adoption.

With debate limited, it will be significantly easier for McConnell to get some of Trump's nominees confirmed. 
McConnell previously went nuclear on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominations, which had required 60 votes, in order to place Neil Gorsuch and, later, Brett Kavanaugh on the high court.
What is the nuclear option?


It's a last-resort, break-in-case-of-emergency way for the majority party in the Senate to overcome obstruction by the minority. It involves changing the rules of the Senate so that an action previously subject to a filibuster, and thus a 60-vote threshold, can pass with a simple 51-vote majority.


WHERE DOES THE NAME COME FROM?
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., coined the termbecause both parties saw it as an unthinkable final recourse, just like nuclear war. During a standoff over President George W. Bush's nominees in 2003, Republicans discussed invoking the parliamentary move by using the codeword "the Hulk" since it, like the superhero alter ego, cannot be controlled once it is unleashed.


Others, wanting to give it a positive spin, call changing the rules "the constitutional option."


HAS THE NUCLEAR OPTION BEEN USED BEFORE?
Senators have threatened to go nuclear for decades. In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon wrote an advisory opinion that helped lay the groundwork for the procedural move.

But no one pushed the proverbial button until 2013, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., invoked the nuclear option to lower the 60-vote threshold to 51 for confirmation of executive branch nominees (such as Cabinet secretaries) and federal judges below the Supreme Court (such as for U.S. courts of appeal).


Reid justified the move by citing unprecedented obstruction from Senate Republicans, but members of both parties lamented the precedent it set. McConnell and Republicans repeatedly cited Reid's move as the basis for invoking the option regarding Supreme Court nominees.


WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
As a result of the nuclear option being triggered, Trump and future presidents of either party will have a much easier time getting lower-level nominees confirmed — which has played no small part in McConnell and Trump having confirmed a record number of judges to the federal bench in such a short time.
With just 51 votes needed, judges can be approved on party lines. The 60-vote threshold made it so that, in most cases, a bipartisan consensus was needed.


Not only has this option been heavily discussed with regard to judicial and other nominees, but there have been increasing calls for it to be used to abolish the 60-vote threshold for legislation. Early in his presidency, Trump called for the 60-vote threshold to be eliminated so he would have an easier time with legislation, while, on the campaign trail, a number of Democratic candidates have expressed interest in ending the legislative filibuster so they can have an easier time passing their agendas.

[jj22]

Americans allowed him to steal a SCOTUS seat from a sitting President with no repercussion, and he's been empowered ever since.

They even allowed him to feel confident enough to complain about Democrats obstruction on nominees in an op ed.

Hypocrisy has never been rewarded like it is now.

Dems on the other hand tried the option once and lost the majority. Americans don't play when it comes to Dems.

[NATI BENGALS]

Time for term limits all around.

No one deserves a lifetime appointment

[BmorePat87]

The Democrats reap what they sow. Harry Reid began this garbage, they just continued it. Whoever is next will end the filibuster.

Harry Reid is responsible for garbage like Betsy Devos.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2019, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Democrats reap what they sow. Harry Reid began this garbage, they just continued it. Whoever is next will end the filibuster.

Harry Reid is responsible for garbage like Betsy Devos.

Personally I've never been a fan of the filibuster so all of this is OK by me.  

[Yojimbo]

I’m fine with a simple majority for all votes.

[*bfine32*]

(04-04-2019, 08:26 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m fine with a simple majority for all votes.

It does sorta support the one person, one vote mentality. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2019, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Democrats reap what they sow. Harry Reid began this garbage, they just continued it. Whoever is next will end the filibuster.

Harry Reid is responsible for garbage like Betsy Devos.

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2019, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Democrats reap what they sow. Harry Reid began this garbage, they just continued it. Whoever is next will end the filibuster.

Harry Reid is responsible for garbage like Betsy Devos.

Just because one party used it first does not mean they are responsible for the other party using it later.  It is completely possible that the Republicans would have done this even if Reid had not done it first.

Personally the whole idea of a filibuster as a way to stop legislation has ALWAYS seemed ridiculous to me.  It is like having a tie game decided by which QB can hold his breath the longest.

[BmorePat87]

(04-05-2019, 10:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Just because one party used it first does not mean they are responsible for the other party using it later.  It is completely possible that the Republicans would have done this even if Reid had not done it first.

Personally the whole idea of a filibuster as a way to stop legislation has ALWAYS seemed ridiculous to me.  It is like having a tie game decided by which QB can hold his breath the longest.

The nuclear option was the unspoken threat that parties threw back and forth for decades until Reid finally did it. He 100% should be blamed for crossing the line. 

McConnell should also be blamed for the current culture of the Senate. Data shows that once he took control, the production of the Senate plummeted and the amount of obstruction (refusing to debate issues, vote on bills, or consider appointments) increased. 

I never excused the GOP, but adding context and calling out the toxic culture is important. The GOP may have been the ones to cross the line, but they weren't. For as much shit as the last few speakers have gotten, Pelosi, Boehner, and Ryan did a fairly good job at reigning in the "rough and tumble" House while the Senate, once known for being the cordial chamber, fell into disgrace.

[jj22]

(04-04-2019, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Democrats reap what they sow. Harry Reid began this garbage, they just continued it. Whoever is next will end the filibuster.

Harry Reid is responsible for garbage like Betsy Devos.

Americans made sure Dems paid the price for it. Something they won't do to Republicans.

Republicans like McConnell will continue to do things like steal scotus seats from sitting Presidents they don't like etc because they can. American voters don't hold them to equal standards.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2019, 10:33 AM)jj22 Wrote: Americans made sure Dems paid the price for it. Something they won't do to Republicans.

Republicans like McConnell will continue to do things like steal scotus seats from sitting Presidents they don't like etc because they can. American voters don't hold them to equal standards.

I don't think that election was over the nuclear option.  And didn't the Republicans just lose the house in a big way?  

[BmorePat87]

(04-05-2019, 10:33 AM)jj22 Wrote: Americans made sure Dems paid the price for it. Something they won't do to Republicans.

Republicans like McConnell will continue to do things like steal scotus seats from sitting Presidents they don't like etc because they can. American voters don't hold them to equal standards.

I disagree with this assessment. Population shifts favor Republicans in the Senate but not the House, so we have seen Republicans pay the price there. 

[Dill]

(04-04-2019, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Democrats reap what they sow. Harry Reid began this garbage, they just continued it. Whoever is next will end the filibuster.

Harry Reid is responsible for garbage like Betsy Devos.

No. Republican voters are. They put in office the guy who picked her, and a range of other unqualified cabinet members. Then they kept the Senate in GOP hands.

[Dill]

(04-04-2019, 04:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mitch-mcconnell-triggered-nuclear-option-again-here-s-what-means-n990521

On Wednesday, McConnell used Senate procedural tactics to bypass a 60-vote threshold required to overcome opposition to slashing the debate time for lower-level executive branch nominations, enabling him to do so with just a simple 51-vote majority, largely along party lines. Later Wednesday, McConnell used the same move to shorten debate time for district court nominations.


McConnell is pulling the lever on the nuclear option to make it so that non-Cabinet-level executive and district court nominations need only two hours of floor debate rather than the existing 30 hours of debate before a final confirmation vote is held.

Not a problem.  When Democrats regain the Senate, the GOP will be happy to return to the 30 hour rule.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2019, 08:26 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m fine with a simple majority for all votes.

Me too, with the exception of SCOTUS. That is one that I feel should be a super-majority, simply because it is an appointment of a leader to a co-equal branch of government and so I feel it deserves a little more than the simple-majority standard if it's not an election by the people.

[BmorePat87]

(04-08-2019, 02:15 PM)Dill Wrote: No. Republican voters are. They put in office the guy who picked her, and a range of other unqualified cabinet members. Then they kept the Senate in GOP hands.

She'd never get 60 votes. She got a record low 50, requiring the only ever tiebreaker from the Vice President for a cabinet confirmation. 

Harry Reid is responsible for that being possible. 

[Benton]

(04-04-2019, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Democrats reap what they sow. Harry Reid began this garbage, they just continued it. Whoever is next will end the filibuster.

Harry Reid is responsible for garbage like Betsy Devos.

Depends on what happened behind closed doors.

Previously, deals were worked out so that everybody got something. Reid may have been the first to use it, but that may been the result of the gop being the first to say 'no deals.' it's unlikely well know.

In the end, there's a lot of lawmakers that need out of office.