Obama 2005 : Nuclear Option Not What Founders Had In Mind, Will Poison Washington

@retire05, #47:

Perhaps you are so uninformed that you do not realize that both slavery, and dueling, were state laws? So once again, as you are wont to do frequently, you are trying to compare apples to cumquats.

No comparison of any kind was made. Two examples were given of why an existing state of affairs is not necessarily the best state of affairs, simply because it has a long history behind it. The state or federal aspect is totally irrelevant.

And what exactly was the “rule” that allowed Harry Reid to change the rules.

The changes regarding filibuster did not actually involve a change to the Standing Rules of the Senate. This was accomplished by causing a change to the operational rules, using a maneuver that everyone in the Senate was fully aware of—the so called nuclear option. I presume you’ve heard that term before. Maybe you should have looked it up to see what it refers to.

The nuclear opinion refers to a rules change brought about by way of a point of order. Wikipedia explains this with much greater clarity than I could, so I’ll quote from the Wikipedia nuclear option article directly:

The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer’s ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

Feel free to complain about the source. That makes the explanation no less accurate. There’s never really been any argument about whether or not this could be done. Republicans have previously threatened to use it themselves, on more than one occasion. It should have occurred to them that their gridlock tactic would very likely bring this about.

The use of filibuster should be reserved for bills or appointments where there’s a specific problem with the person appointed or the content of the bill. It shouldn’t have been used as a means of bringing all business to a halt because you’re not getting your way on a laundry list of unrelated matters. Using it in that extreme fashion predictably produced an extreme reaction.

@Greg:

The use of filibuster should be reserved for bills or appointments where there’s a specific problem with the person appointed or the content of the bill.

I agree with that, and that’s what should be used instead of the nuclear option. I can see where that procedure, as outlined in that wiki quote could be almost as burdensome as a filibuster, especially if it’s followed to the letter as described.