Reid's ‘nuclear option’ changes rules, ends repeat filibusters

[BlueStateSaint]

Reid's ‘nuclear option’ changes rules, ends repeat filibusters

By Alexander Bolton - 10/06/11 07:01 PM ET
 
In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to end a filibuster.

Reid said these motions, which do not need unanimous consent, amount to a second-round filibuster after the Senate has voted to move to final passage of a measure.

The Senate voted 51-48 to back Reid and overturn the Senate precedent. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Democrat to vote against his leader.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

The Hill


This will come back to bite Reid.  Now, a fillibuster-proof Senate is 51 votes, and even if the Democratics try to change the Senate rules back after they're swept freom power in the tsunami of 11/6/2012, the new Senate doesn't have to follow those rules.

The Democratics will reap the whirlwind.

[zeitgeist]

How dissapointed the Gang of 14 must be.  
 Members
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) (no longer serving)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike DeWine (R-OH) (no longer serving)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
John Warner (R-VA) (no longer serving)
Robert Byrd (D-WV) (deceased)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) (currently an independent)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Ken Salazar (D-CO) (no longer serving)

[Chris_]

My stepfather was seated next to Olympia Snowe at a local fundraising dinner recently.  I wondered if he had made someone unhappy.

[Splashdown]

Thank God we have the House. We'd be screwed.

[sybilll]

But, doesn't this mean in 2013 when we have the majority, we can kill ObamaCare (provided the SCOTUS doesn't kill it first) with 51 votes? I'm a relative noob on procedural issues, so hellllllllp. 

[BlueStateSaint]

But, doesn't this mean in 2013 when we have the majority, we can kill ObamaCare (provided the SCOTUS doesn't kill it first) with 51 votes? I'm a relative noob on procedural issues, so hellllllllp. 

Yes, it does.

[Janice]

Yes it does, but we know how repukes will scurry to change the rules back ... to be 'fair'. Including the ones that just voted with Reid. You watch, this is how it usually works. They do the same thing when they have the chair leaderships.

[formerlurker]

McConnell had threatened such a motion to force a vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which many Democrats don’t like because it would limit tax deductions for families earning over $250,000. The jobs package would have been considered as an amendment.

McConnell wanted to embarrass the president by demonstrating how few Democrats are willing to support his jobs plan as first drafted. (Senate Democrats have since rewritten the jobs package to pay for its stimulus provisions with a 5.6 surtax on income over $1 million.)

Reid pulls out the big guns to protect the Messiah.   Silly Reid, the sting from the slap you are getting in January 2013 (when the Messiah is long gone on the speaking tour junket) is going to sting like hell and linger. 

[DLR Pyro]

a desperate act by a desperate party.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yes, it does.

Well, it means it would get through the Senate, but the President would still veto it if God forbid Obama was re-elected in spite of himself.  Having enough GOP votes to override a veto will never happen, it would have to involve enough Democrats jumping ship and signing on for it too, which is not completely impossible, just unlikely.

[Splashdown]

Wait...Reid enacted this so as NOT to vote on Obama's "jobs" bill????