However, this week, Senator Reid filed a cloture petition on the Hamilton nominee even before debate started, clearly legitimizing the notion of filibustering nominees.

The Democrats filibustered Bush nominees, especially Judges, notwithstanding Hatch’s protests about the constitution.

Now the Dems, by filing a cloture petition are expecting the Republicans to filibuster nominees.

Republicans must make use of the filibuster with regard to nominees, the Dems did it to Bush all the time.

The Executive is wholly within its constitutional authority to expect an up or down vote on its judicial nominees, and that the Senate will honor the constitutional authority of the Executive and dispose of the Executive Calender.

The Senate has the constitutional authority to set its own rules as it pertains to the Legislative function of Congress, and it has done so by adopting Senate Rule 22.

The healthcare debate falls within the Legislative function, and any attempt to change Senate rules with less than a two/thirds majority would certainly qualify as the nuclear option.

This would have ruffled (and still does!) many feathers on both sides of the aisle.

In this case, Reid would have a harder time just changing the rules, since the ability to filibuster legislation is held on to so dearly.

The nuclear option in this case would be the reconciliation route, which others have written about.

How about it RedStaters, did I sum it up about right?

1st- the bill would have to be sent to the Budget Cmte. to be rewritten- the Byrd Rule requires that every section of the bill directly relates to the budget and must be proven to be effective.

This would strip all of the prevention, wellness and other garbage put in by the HELP cmte out.

2nd- The GOP would have thousands of points of order they could make when the bill is brought to the floor,all of which are ultimately ruled on by the Senate Parliamentarian. This would allow for days and weeks of floor fights.

3rd- If passed with a 51 vote threshold out of the Senate that bill in conference would be rejected by House conferees because it would not be able to include a public option etc.

Obviously, we’re in untested waters here, but I would think a Senate with a 58 seat majority could get rid of the filibuster if it really wanted to if all the members were truly on board. The problem (thankfully) is there’s 10-15 Democrat Senators that don’t want to make that move, and instead let Lieberman take the fall.

In order to cut off debate on a piece of legislation, and thus move forward on actually voting on it, a super-majority of 60 votes is required. Notice this isn’t written as “3/5ths of the Senators present.” It is 60 votes. Period. Therefore, Senator Reid must make sure that 60 Senators are there to vote to end debate when it comes up. (As pointed out in another post, this may be a problem, since Sen. Byrd has been absent a lot lately due to illness)

Changing the filibuster rule would require a 2/3 majority, as I understand it. This has been done in the past, but I doubt that would fly now.

The only alternative that bypasses filibuster (besides a bait and switch–which could be done) is reconciliation. This is reserved for budget bills, so that they don’t get bogged down inside the budget cycle. Any part of a health care bill that doesn’t specifically address budget issues could be challenged and thrown out, which is why I think this tactic has been largely abandoned.

Hope this helps

How were they able to even make good on this threat when they were well short of 60 votes? By that same reasoning, couldn’t Democrats go “nuclear” also?

Is there a way to “end” the filibuster without 60 votes? I’m loving the filibuster right about now, but it really isn’t constitutional. If the founders wanted 60 votes to pass something in the Senate, they would have written it in the constitution.

The way I see it, this “exchange” is actually worse than a “public option.”

I wouldn’t question a good thing in the unlikely event it led to defeat of the whole thing, but I do find it puzzling.

http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/19/gun-alert-on-the-reid-bill-mandates-create-gun-health-database/