Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate

[TheDemSocialist]

After days of intense lobbying, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is confident he has enough votes to trigger the nuclear option to change the Senate’s rules.







Reid needs 50 votes for the controversial tactic, which Republicans say would forever “change the character of the Senate” but Democrats argue is necessary to fix a broken institution.Reid expects to have at least 51 Democratic votes to prohibit Republicans from filibustering President Obama’s executive-branch nominees. Vice President Joe Biden could provide insurance by presiding over the chamber to break a tie vote.

The standing rules of the Senate require a 67-vote majority to change the rules, but Reid would circumvent that by making a point of order that senators should be prohibited from filibustering executive-branch nominees.

This would clear the way for the Senate to confirm Obama’s most controversial nominees with simple majority votes, including Richard Cordray, the nominee to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and three picks for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Read more: Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Bout damn time. These rules are due for some common sense change. I applaud you Senator Reid! Move this forward! :applaud

 

[Cardinal]

Read more: Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Bout damn time. These rules are due for some common sense change. I applaud you Senator Reid! Move this forward! [/FONT][/COLOR]:applaud

If he has the votes why doesn't he just change the filibuster back to its original form? That seems much less drastic.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Why should the Senate be so interested in assisting a failed President to fast-track nominees to promote even more failed administration policies?

In a practical sense, I don't believe this will harm Republicans at all - Democrats will be forever seen as the party that couldn't develop consensus in the Senate and it wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans benefit in the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms.

 

[a351]

Ensuring ease of confirmation in the short term is not worth a step of this severity. I'd hope that a number of Democrats would stray from party lines on this particular vote.

 

[notquiteright]

Elections have meaning... heard that somewhere before. Presidents should get the people they wish to nominate without across the board holds on the process. Seems it isn't a matter of consensus but rather of one senator blocking the process. When it comes to nominations 51% should be the standard.

I don't think this helps the Republicans in the 2014 elections, but nothing else has so who knows...

What will be noted from this period is another bout of hyper-partisanship where under Senate rules only super majorities can move bills forward. When the Senate minority leader stated the number one priority for Republican Senators is to make Obama a one term president I don't see how consensus is possible.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Read more: Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Bout damn time. These rules are due for some common sense change. I applaud you Senator Reid! Move this forward! [/FONT][/COLOR]:applaud

LOL - I just don't feel safe giving anyone in government the use of weapon anything - lol - I can just see it happening all wrong. . . a Rep majority and one bill they don't read - and them BOOM - we're all dead.

 

[ToastyOats]

Harry Reid and the word "confident" don't exactly jive in the same sentence, he's threatened to inhibit the filibuster a few times and has backed down each time. He's a milquetoast of a leader.

 

[ChrisL]

Read more: Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Bout damn time. These rules are due for some common sense change. I applaud you Senator Reid! Move this forward! [/FONT][/COLOR]:applaud

And will you still be happy about this move when there is a Republican president again and the same rules apply?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

And will you still be happy about this move when there is a Republican president again and the same rules apply?

Yes.. I think a lot of the Senate rules are inherently just idiotic and slow down an efficient democracy.

 

[tererun]

LOL - I just don't feel safe giving anyone in government the use of weapon anything - lol - I can just see it happening all wrong. . . a Rep majority and one bill they don't read - and them BOOM - we're all dead.

From what I have been reading this doesn't cover bills, it only refers to presidential nominations. They do have to have people in some of these positions and the opposition to nominations has been problematic. Still, i would prefer a system where filibustering is still possible, but would require actual effort like the old way of actually having to filibuster. I think that would make it so that opponents would chose their battles for important objections rather than choosing to battle everything.

 

[wbcoleman]

Yes.. I think a lot of the Senate rules are inherently just idiotic and slow down an efficient democracy.

Why the heck should we want an efficient democracy? The inefficiency of the American Constitution is the root of its genius.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

From what I have been reading this doesn't cover bills, it only refers to presidential nominations. They do have to have people in some of these positions and the opposition to nominations has been problematic. Still, i would prefer a system where filibustering is still possible, but would require actual effort like the old way of actually having to filibuster. I think that would make it so that opponents would chose their battles for important objections rather than choosing to battle everything.

That was a snide joke at the term they gave it Sorry

 

[BmanMcfly]

Read more: Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Bout damn time. These rules are due for some common sense change. I applaud you Senator Reid! Move this forward! [/FONT][/COLOR]:applaud

Senator Reid is as corrupt as they get, but by the sound of things he's trying to do good.

That said, there's a reason the senate has 10% approval.

 

[jamesrage]

Read more: Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Bout damn time. These rules are due for some common sense change. I applaud you Senator Reid! Move this forward! [/FONT][/COLOR]:applaud

This is going to bite democrats in ass when republicans have a majority in the senate.

 

[Surtr]

Read more: Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Bout damn time. These rules are due for some common sense change. I applaud you Senator Reid! Move this forward! [/FONT][/COLOR]:applaud

Until we get a Republican in office, allowing them to do just the same. Then these same people will cry, bitch, and moan about how the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Remember kids: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. These people are playing with a double edged sword that they have absolutely no respect for, and one of these days, someone is going to get cut by it. So celebrate and cheer now, while you can.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

This is going to bite democrats in ass when republicans have a majority in the senate.

:lamo
What in like 15 years?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Why the heck should we want an efficient democracy?

Better question: Why the hell wouldnt we want an efficient democracy?

 

[Surtr]

:lamo
What in like 15 years?

Keep laughing. The will of the majority is a fickle thing, and what works for you now might just be your worst nightmare a few years down the road.

 

[jamesrage]

:lamo
What in like 15 years?

So you are fine if republicans have senate majority and this bites democrats in the ass. Good to know.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So you are fine if republicans have senate majority and this bites democrats in the ass. Good to know.

Yes. As i stated before: the rules no matter what are long overdue and need to be changed.

 

[iguanaman]

Why should the Senate be so interested in assisting a failed President to fast-track nominees to promote even more failed administration policies?

In a practical sense, I don't believe this will harm Republicans at all - Democrats will be forever seen as the party that couldn't develop consensus in the Senate and it wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans benefit in the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms.

Funny but I see it as Republicans failing to compromise and blocking all Govt. business as the problem. The War on women and failure at immigration reform will bring out a lot of females and minorities in 2014 too and they won't vote Republican.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Funny but I see it as Republicans failing to compromise and blocking all Govt. business as the problem. The War on women and failure at immigration reform will bring out a lot of females and minorities in 2014 too and they won't vote Republican.

You seriously think that Republicans holding far left nominees of Obama, similar to Democrats holding far right nominees from Bush, will be seen by any significant number of people as a "war on women"? On what planet?

If anything, it proves that Harry Reid is an abysmal leader in the Senate, unable to get business done and unable to gain consensus approaches to the business of the country. The only person worse at leadership is Obama. The bull-headed "I'm in charge, I hold the crown" approach to governance never gets anywhere. Thankfully, a fully disfunctional Senate, unable to do the bidding of a fully disasterous President, is great news for the country on the whole. The less they accomplish, the better for all concerned.

 

[iguanaman]

You seriously think that Republicans holding far left nominees of Obama, similar to Democrats holding far right nominees from Bush, will be seen by any significant number of people as a "war on women"? On what planet?

If anything, it proves that Harry Reid is an abysmal leader in the Senate, unable to get business done and unable to gain consensus approaches to the business of the country. The only person worse at leadership is Obama. The bull-headed "I'm in charge, I hold the crown" approach to governance never gets anywhere. Thankfully, a fully disfunctional Senate, unable to do the bidding of a fully disasterous President, is great news for the country on the whole. The less they accomplish, the better for all concerned.

Right and Boner suppressing votes is not "the bull-headed "I'm in charge, I hold the crown" approach"? At least Reid has the President on his side so he DOES hold the KEY to anything Obama might sign. You see it's all for naught without that.
And back to the subject ,the dysfunction you adore is another reason why voters do not like Congress and give the Republican House all time lows in approval. Thanks for pointing out that it is Republicans that are causing it. Because they can and they also want Govt. to be dysfunctional.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Right and Boner suppressing votes is not "the bull-headed "I'm in charge, I hold the crown" approach"? At least Reid has the President on his side so he DOES hold the KEY to anything Obama might sign. You see it's all for naught without that.
And back to the subject ,the dysfunction you adore is another reason why voters do not like Congress and give the Republican House all time lows in approval. Thanks for pointing out that it is Republicans that are causing it. Because they can and they also want Govt. to be dysfunctional.

It wouldn't play into your agenda to talk about the Senate as dysfunctional, holding up House bills and the business of the country, would it?

 

[iguanaman]

It wouldn't play into your agenda to talk about the Senate as dysfunctional, holding up House bills and the business of the country, would it?

The dysfunction comes from an imploding political party that has lost its compass and it's initials are GOP. Where have you been?