[jazusamo]

It didn't take Dingy Harry any time at all to get on this.

[ScottinVA]

He’s going with the “nuclear option.” I guess he figures there won’t be a Republican majority anytime soon.

Very likely, he’s right.

[RIghtwardHo]

Here’s the point many are missing ... he’s going to make it neigh unto impossible for the GOP to filibuster judgeships. To heck with legislation, THAT’s the biggie.

[Red Badger]

The nuclear option is now being loaded............

[cotton1706]

There is a solution to this threat: NO MORE UNANIMOUS CONSENTS!

Have the senate vote on absolutely everything. Get these people on the record for every single vote they take. No voice votes. Yeas and Nays for everything.

And an extra check is the House. No negotiations with the senate before they pass something. Let them pass a bill, get their members on the record, and then the negotiations with the House begin (as is the proper legislative conference process).

Harry Reid hates to have to take votes. He hates having to put his members on the record. And he hates not knowing what’s going to happen ahead of time. He wants himself, Boehner, and Obama to get together, decide what’s going to happen, then ram it through.

The answer to tyranny is regular legislative order, each House acting on its own issues, holding votes on them, then going to conference, agreeing on one common piece of legislation, passing it and THEN sending it to the president. There should be lots of votes, lots of conference committees and lots of votes. Make the senators work for their pay!

[Defiant]

Check it out, Delhi Rebels. Let me know if Reid requires 60 votes for his proposed changes. Let me know if Angus King believes he is bound by prior Senate rules. I will await your wise analysis. I believe Reid will revise the filibuster rule, and I believe it will be done with only a regular majority.

I actually don't mind this. It will lay the groundwork for the death of the filibuster. If the Republicans can't get a majority, they don't deserve to stop legislation, and if they do ever get a majority, I don't want Dems blocking legislation. Delays are fine; they must be limited in duration, though.

[PubliusMM]

Reid, “I think the rules have been abused...”

Must be checking the mirror for his reflection, again...

I have no faith in the long-term future of this grand experiment. Last night’s results are Tocqueville’s words writ large. The takers who vote now outnumber the producers who vote.
The only answer is for the producers to establish another Constitutional Republic, without the absurdities of the leftists and their incessant demand for their entitlements.

[SeminoleCounty]

Knowing the spineless GOP Liberal RINOs in the Senate...they probably will let Dingy Harry do this....because it would be “bi-partisanship”

Fortunately, the House is still GOP....and maybe a change of leadership there will strengthen the House GOP

[TonyM]

If we had a decent leader in the house nothing would move in the next 4 years, absolutely nothing. Just stonewall everything. Sure O will get some things done by executive order but we should do everything we can to make it as difficult as possible.

[Mad Dawgg]

My political goal from this point forward is to destroy the blood-sucking, socialistic, abortion-enabling, spend-it-all political party that is destroying our country...

and the Democrats too!

[tomkat]

Right between the eyes, HR              +

[johnthebaptistmoore]

A nightmare that never ends...

[zencycler]

I'm inclined to say we let him end filibusters - here's why:

1) The next four years will be dreadful, and 2016 will be a great opportunity for the GOP to take over control of all three branches of government.

2) While we may get this control in 2016, we will likely not get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In order to set our country right, and to demonstrate the value of free markets and liberty to the electorate, a conservative GOP would need to be able to enact it's agenda quickly in 2016.

3) The right of the minority to block legislation in the Senate is not really in the Constitution. It's granted indirectly, because the Constitution provides that each chamber can write its own rules. The intial 60-vote threshold rule, which was orginally meant to be a rule that set limits on debates, has morphed into a threshold required to pass legislation, which was not the intent of those who voted for this rule.

4) For the foreseeable future, I believe the ability to pass legislation by slim majorities in the Senate will be of much more use to Conservates and Republicans than it will Democrats and Liberals. It seems Democrats can often find the 60 votes they need, and the GOP often cannot.

Hence, I don't think Reid has thought this through, and perhaps we should just take advantage of his short-sightedness and go along with this change.