I was wondering why they were bothering with 60 votes. Harry Reid broke the ice on this once...it will be broken again in the future...why wouldn't the GOP do it? Why only allow the Dems to do stuff like that?
You may remember that the 60-vote requirement (not technically a filibuster) stopped many things the Dems wanted when they were in charge.
McConnel does not want to get rid of it, and that is the right call. The GOP won’t be in the majority forever.
version of the House.
Reid seriously fucked up enough already on judicial appointments.
Direction and go nuclear. They should also limit immigration to just white highly educated people so we can have more white babies and start getting the ratio more in balance.
Returning from DC and my Re confident then ever that these despicable Alt right folks will be booted. November is still a long way but let the traitor do what he says in his diarrhea tweets. He doesn’t do what he says when he is face to face with people. Let him do what he says and his approval will continue to drop and he will drag McConnel and Ryan down with him. Let’s have more photos and videos of families being deported. Let Stormy in the front door instead of the back. Go for it the Party of Trumpo. Beautiful
Is there a reason Reid limited the exception to judicial appointments other than that Reid wanted to make a judicial appointment at that point in time?
The 60 vote requirement is a good thing, which is why it bothered me when Reid rescinded it for a short term win. The 60 vote requirement is one of the few remaining reasons to have a Senate.
Even if they get rid of the 60 vote threshold, the Senate will still serve the purpose of spreading representation more evenly among states rather than concentrating in population centers.
I am not advocating changing the rules, I just don’t think it would be calamitous if that happened. I’d rather get back to passing a fucking annual budget rather than these continuing resolutions. That was also on that complete asshole, Harry Reid.
As I'm sure you know, I think the Senate had 3 main differences from the House:
1) Representation of the states...the spread effect you mention. This is the weakest of the three, I think.
2) 6 year terms (to purposefully make the Senate less susceptible to trends and hot issues...to lessen the ability of government to respond quickly...to slow things down until cooler heads prevail)
3) Senators selected by the states, not the people. This was the strongest (and most pro-Federalism) of the three, but it was abolished by the 17th Amendment.
The 60 vote rule is another difference...enacted by the Senate. The 60 vote rule slows things down just like the 6 year rule, perhaps even better. But, it is just a rule of the Senate, and as such, it can be taken out by 51 votes, judicial nominee or otherwise. Chris implies that the Reid Option (setting aside 60 votes in favor of a simple majority) is limited to judicial nominees, but that is only because Reid made that exception. The GOP can sit tight and honor Reid's decision...until another Dem comes along and finds another exception for something important to them. Or, the GOP can make its own exceptions like Reid did. Their choice.
(no message)
Does Paul oppose it due to deficit spending? If so, I think that is a the best reason to be opposed to it.
You make a good point, though. The Reid Option makes no sense if you don't have the votes.
To dream.
Overall I support the concept of going to 51 votes if it works.
I've gone through severe budget cutting in my career. It is painful, but it is doable, and it needs to be done by all government departments.
Heitkamp, Manchin, McCaskill, Jones, and one other I can't remember.
Also, Lindsay Graham was opposed as well. Graham and Flake were promised a DACA vote during the tax talks, Paul thinks the amount of money for the Wall is crazy. McCain is obviously out.
From everything I can gather, the issue is actually Stephen Miller and John Kelly. Trump has tried to make a couple deals, but then they talk him out of it by sending in the Freedom Caucus from the House. Lindsay Graham has been especially critical of Kelly and Miller the last few days.
Red states. If Schumer didn’t think he had enough votes to block passage, he would have told the. To vote against it, and they would have done so.