Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

Backpats to TPM

After years of threats and warnings, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his Democratic majority on Thursday executed the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch and judicial nominees, except for the Supreme Court.

Fifty-two Democrats voted against upholding the filibuster rules after Republicans again blocked cloture on the nomination of Patricia Millett to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted with Republicans to sustain the filibuster rules.

"Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing his executive team or confirming judges," Reid said on the Senate floor. "We're burning wasted hours and wasted days between filibusters. I could say instead we're burning wasted days and wasted weeks between filibusters. ... It's time to change. It's time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete."

Reid invoked the swath of GOP filibusters of cabinet, sub-cabinet and judicial nominees, from Chuck Hagel and Mel Watt to executive positions and Obama's three nominees to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins.

"Is the Senate working now? Can anyone say the Senate is working now?" the majority leader said before the vote. "I don't think so."

The "Reid Rule," as supporters are calling it, does not affect the minority party's ability to filibuster Supreme Court nominees or legislation.​

Here is why Reid and the Democrats voted to abolish the 60-vote threshold on certain nominees:

Enough bragging. Here's the reasoning that led me to believe that Reid would finally pull the trigger:

• No side-talks going on, no preemptive "gathering of the Senate." This was key. The Democrats, even if Republican asked in private, weren't reciprocating any talks. Schumer and McCain weren't talking, Reid wasn't talking to McConnell; the Democrats were steadfast in plowing ahead.
• Several senators previously weary about changing the rules changed their minds: Boxer, Feinstein, and so on.
• If Republicans were to regain the majority and enact their own rules reform, it's better to have a recent precedent of doing it by a partisan majority from across the aisle. This catalyzed the conflict and diminished chances of a last-minute deal.
• Reasons for avoiding a deal at the beginning of this year were nullified: Boehner argued that if the Senate changed its rules, the House wouldn't consider its legislation. Seeing as how that happened anyway...
• Reid, in the end, was left with no other choice. Republicans were filibustering any and all nominees despite their qualifications, and the Senate 2014 map is the hardest it's been since the Democrats took the Senate in 2006. Better to pull the trigger now and get some tangible benefits than to wait after next year's election or 2016 where they could either lose the Senate or the presidency.

This is a great day: The Senate was made far more functional as an institution, and the days of a 60-vote threshold to end debate on legislation and SCOTUS nominees are clearly numbered.

 

[shadyspace]

This is a big fucking deal

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Good. This needed to happen. There should be no reason that the senate rules shouldn't be changed by a simple majority anyway.

 

[Link]

Greatly needed, and Republicans brought this on themselves. When they openly admit to blocking appointees simply because Obama selected them, that's no way for things to run.

 

[Arde5643]

Gettin' me some popcorn.

 

[Zero Hero]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) fumed at Reid's decision, accusing him of trying to change the subject from Obamacare and "cook up some fake fight over judges." He argued that "by any objective standard, Senate Republicans have been very, very fair to this president" when it comes to letting him appoint his nominees.

 

[RDreamer]

Reid finally found his balls? Awesome.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I know that at the end of Obama's 1st term, over 10% of federal judgeships were vacant.

 

[kris.]

Sooooo can someone explain this to me in layman's terms? I'm slightly confused.

 

[Black Mamba]

In reality, the GOP went nuclear and brought it upon themselves. Their position on the DC Court nominees was untenable for a functioning senate.

 

[Gotchaye]

Wow, this is a really big deal. It's unfortunate that we couldn't come to an arrangement that preserves the minority party's ability to block particularly terrible appointments, but as long as blocking is cost-less and the minority party is the one making the determination of terrible-ness, this is where we were going to end up. Good on Reid.

Also it seems like he might as well have done the same for the Supreme Court, since this sets a precedent.

 

[The Technomancer]

Sooooo can someone explain this to me in layman terms? I'm slightly confused.

The Senate can still use the filibuster to block Supreme Court Justice nomination and legislation

The Senate can no longer use the filibuster to block literally every other presidential appointee to any position the way they have been doing

 

[FyreWulff]

In support of this. The modern use of the filibuster and the insertion of the filibuster in too many places allows for little effort with too much effect to grind everything to a halt.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Can't wait for the Republicans to whine about this.

 

[The Adder]

Sooooo can someone explain this to me in layman's terms? I'm slightly confused.

Seat that goes to Presidential appointee is open

President nominates someone

Senate Republicans filibuster Presidential nominee.

Seat remains unfilled.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

Senate Democrats have removed the ability to do that.

 

[The Librarian]

@edatpost
Senate votes 55-43 to invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Millet to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

Good god. Hold on, lemme adjust my glasses. Is...is that a functional institution I see?

Holy shit this is so strange.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Took long enough

 

[bananas]

Sooooo can someone explain this to me in layman terms? I'm slightly confused.

In the previous rule, executive branch and judicial nominees needed 2/3rds vote in the Senate to be approved. This changes it to a simple majority to approve except for Supreme Court nominees.

Republicans have been blocking almost all of Obama's nominations since he became president for no real reason other than he nominated them.

Speaker Boehner earlier this year said to Senate Majority Leader Reid that any of the legislative agenda that the Democrats wanted to do wouldn't get passed if he went with the nuclear option.

Republicans proceeded to block legislation anyway. Reid said, "fuck you."

 

[Flying Toaster]

Honestly surprised it took this long. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats feel if the Republicans ever come into power again.

 

[kirblar]

Thank god.

Legislation will be next.

 

[Link]

Honestly surprised it took this long. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats feel if the Republicans ever come into power again.

I'd be more concerned about that if I didn't believe Republicans would have changed the rules the second they got back into power anyway.

 

[Elfforkusu]

From the thread title, I thought they did something bad.

But it's just the (partial) elimination of the filibuster. Good riddance.

 

[The Librarian]

From the thread title, I thought they did something bad.

But it's just the elimination of the filibuster. Good riddance.

Not enough characters to get more specific than that.

 

[Htown]

Sooooo can someone explain this to me in layman's terms? I'm slightly confused.

so generally the president can appoint people to be judges and position holders in the executive branch

these appointments have to be approved by the Senate

Senate rules allow for a filibuster, which is at least in theory a single Senator standing up there and talking forever to prevent other business from being done, in order to prevent the rest of the Senate from doing something he doesn't like. (see below) Occasionally filibustering can be a good thing, but for the most part it's recently been used by the Republicans to prevent the Democratic majority from approving literally any appointment the President has made.

The Democrats finally said "you know what we are sick of your shit" and changed the rules so that you can't filibuster nominees unless they are going to be on the Supreme Court.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

Can't wait for the Republicans to whine about this.

When/if they ever gain back the Senate and the White House this would greatly benefit them.

 

[EvilDick34]

Democrats only did this as a political gambit nothing else, has nothing to do with progress in the senate. I would like to remind those who hate on the Republican party for everything including sneezing that the Republicans at one point threatened the nuclear option on democrats and the democrats whined about it too. Democrats would and have done the same damn thing with filibusters in the past. Democrats only changed the rules so they could push their garbage liberal agenda, nothing more.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

So now Obama is going to appoint a director to the ATF and he's gonna take all our guns away?

edit - Derp, did not realize they got an appointment through a couple months ago.

 

[The Librarian]

so generally the president can appoint people to be judges and position holders in the executive branch

these appointments have to be approved by the Senate

Senate rules allow for a filibuster, which is at least in theory a single Senator standing up there and talking forever to prevent other business from being done, in order to prevent the rest of the Senate from doing something he doesn't like. Occasionally filibustering can be a good thing, but for the most part it's recently been used by the Republicans to prevent the Democratic majority from approving literally any appointment the President has made.

The Democrats finally said "you know what we are sick of your shit" and changed the rules so that you can't filibuster nominees unless they are going to be on the Supreme Court.

This is not the type of filibuster that was gotten rid of, nor was it the type of filibuser that was the problem. What Democrats did was get rid of the sixty-vote threshold needed to begin and end debate on judicial (besides SCOTUS) and federal nominees – that was the filibuster that was abolished.

For more information, see the OP.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Thank god.

Legislation will be next.

One could hope, but I doubt it. Legislation is far more critical and powerful than judicial nominees.

 

[Wilsongt]

Fox News Breaking News alert: "SENATE DEMS WIN VOTE TO CHANGE FILIBUSTER, WEAKENING MINORITY PARTY'S POWER TO BLOCK NOMINEES"

Weakening? No. Preventing Senate Republicans from being giant cunts to anything related to an Obama appointee. You know... making sure the government actually fucking works and empty seats get filled like they're suppose to.

 

[Link]

Democrats only did this as a political gambit nothing else, has nothing to do with progress in the senate. I would like to remind those who hate on the Republican party for everything including sneezing that the Republicans at one point threatened the nuclear option on democrats and the democrats whined about it too. Democrats would and have done the same damn thing with filibusters in the past. Democrats only changed the rules so they could push their garbage liberal agenda, nothing more.

I'm literally laughing out loud right now.

 

[kirblar]

edit: nvm saw the tag

 

[Leunam]

Reposting because fuck this guy:

Sen. Carl Levin (MI), a consistent Democratic opponent of filibuster reform, said the GOP's recent judicial blockade hasn't changed his mind. "If the majority can change the rules, there are no rules," Levin told reporters.

 

[Htown]

This is not the type of filibuster that was gotten rid of, nor was it the type of filibuser that was the problem. What Democrats did was get rid of the sixty-vote threshold needed to begin and end debate on judicial (besides SCOTUS) and federal nominees – that was the filibuster that was abolished.

For more information, see the OP.

derp

fixed

 

[Wilsongt]

Democrats only did this as a political gambit nothing else, has nothing to do with progress in the senate. I would like to remind those who hate on the Republican party for everything including sneezing that the Republicans at one point threatened the nuclear option on democrats and the democrats whined about it too. Democrats would and have done the same damn thing with filibusters in the past. Democrats only changed the rules so they could push their garbage liberal agenda, nothing more.

Haha -- *looks at tag* Hahaha.

Yeah... Okay.

 

[Pyrokai]

Honestly surprised it took this long. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats feel if the Republicans ever come into power again.

God help us all if so. They ain't no Bush era GOP....

 

[Cyan]

I'd be more concerned about that if I didn't believe Republicans would have changed the rules the second they got back into power anyway.

Yes. Also, while grinding the government to a complete halt may be good for GOP election prospects, it's not good for the US in general. Even if the Republicans are able to pass legislation I don't like once they get into power, it's better to have a functional government than a status quo of a government that can't do anything, ever.

 

[BakedSardine]

Reposting because fuck this guy:

The reason he says this is because there will be a day when Republicans have the majority, and allowing a simple majority to change long established rules at a whim sets up a very unstable system.

 

[Wilsongt]

Yes. Also, while grinding the government to a complete halt may be good for GOP election prospects, it's not good for the US in general. Even if the Republicans are able to pass legislation I don't like once they get into power, it's better to have a functional government than a status quo of a government that can't do anything, ever.

It's unfortunate that our government may be at a standstill and not functional for many years to come at this rate.

 

[Grym]

woah....Reid does have a pair?

 

[Blader]

Democrats only did this as a political gambit nothing else, has nothing to do with progress in the senate. I would like to remind those who hate on the Republican party for everything including sneezing that the Republicans at one point threatened the nuclear option on democrats and the democrats whined about it too. Democrats would and have done the same damn thing with filibusters in the past. Democrats only changed the rules so they could push their garbage liberal agenda, nothing more.

Indeed, fuck the GOP's pro-sneezing platform.

also, lol @ all of the "Reid has balls?!" remarks, which show up every single time he does something.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Democrats only did this as a political gambit nothing else, has nothing to do with progress in the senate. I would like to remind those who hate on the Republican party for everything including sneezing that the Republicans at one point threatened the nuclear option on democrats and the democrats whined about it too. Democrats would and have done the same damn thing with filibusters in the past. Democrats only changed the rules so they could push their garbage liberal agenda, nothing more.

Tag Quote.

 

[Mumei]

Yes. Also, while grinding the government to a complete halt may be good for GOP election prospects, it's not good for the US in general. Even if the Republicans are able to pass legislation I don't like once they get into power, it's better to have a functional government than a status quo of a government that can't do anything, ever.

I think "a government that can only do things Republicans want" might be more accurate.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Sad to to come to this but really no other choice, with nearly as many Obama nominees getting blocked as in the history of the union. If the republicans want 60 to confirm then that needs to be in the constitution not through rules abuse and chicanery. It is funny to read quotes of both sides of players from 2005, no shortage of hypocrisy on either end, but par for the course.

 

[richiek]

About goddamn fucking time.

Reid should have done this sooner.

 

[ivysaur12]

This had to be done. Good on Harry.

 

[Black Mamba]

Democrats only did this as a political gambit nothing else, has nothing to do with progress in the senate. I would like to remind those who hate on the Republican party for everything including sneezing that the Republicans at one point threatened the nuclear option on democrats and the democrats whined about it too. Democrats would and have done the same damn thing with filibusters in the past. Democrats only changed the rules so they could push their garbage liberal agenda, nothing more.

This is bullshit. When the GOP threatened nuclear option, the dems agreed to only use the filibuster on extreme nominees and then proceeded to allow bush's nominees through.

The GOP refused to change its position here. They said they would not allow a vote on ANY nominee for the DC court no matter what despite the law demanding seats be filled.

 

[slit]

The reason he says this is because there will be a day when Republicans have the majority, and allowing a simple majority to change long established rules at a whim sets up a very unstable system.

The only it can change is if more senators vote for legislation then don't if it gets passed. Now I know this is bad for Dems if they lose the majority in the Senate, but it's getting ridiculous and has to change even though this is just a small step.

 

[Drakeon]

Holy shit. He finally did it, didn't think Reid had it in him. My opinion of Reid has definitely turned around between this and how they handled the shut down fight.

 

[dabig2]

Reposting because fuck this guy:

His argument is amusing considering the history of the filibuster and how it became to be what it was prior to today.