I'm confused about senate rules

[PghBaldy]

Yep. Democrats fight like terrorists, we fight like pacifists.

[Sacajaweau]

The filibuster was applicable to legislation...not advise and consent.

[SgtHooper]

No, wrong thinking. Do it NOW! Never cower in the face of evil. This is not retribution, simply exercising precedent.

[Lopeover]

Sen Harry Reid set a precedent. Republicans need to go nuclear. We won.

[Nifster]

Yes the dems did. Then Mitch the wuss had it reinstituted. It can be changed again

[PapaBear3625]

But then under the heading, “Payback is hell....”, they probably shouldn’t because someday the Dems are likely to get back the Senate.....

The Dems will do it anyway, a whatever point it seems advantageous to them. The only people who feel bound by rules are Republicans.

[Republic Rocker]

I agree here, this might just be the moment in history we have to fight like h*ll. Trump had to do it to win this thing and there is no way to win anymore if you do not. You can always count on the DEMS to fight dirty nasty and get their way meanwhile The Pubs are always looking for the high road to only find themselves no where to be seen or counted. Trump got elected for a reason.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Senate rules are fluid depending on what the Dems want to get done. And they are purposely complex and confusing since Dems thrive on obfuscation.

Thus, what is a rule now may not be in play further down the road.

[MMaschin]

The ability to filibuster Supreme Court nomination is still in the rules of the current Senate, but as mentioned, each Senate makes it's own rules.

The Senate was intended to be the 'wise old men' of government, the original plan was for State legislatures to pick their Senators, and therefore they would send consensus builders to the Senate. But the 17th Amendment destroyed that, and instead of getting moderates, the Senate now consists of partisans.

Interesting thing is that Harry Reid, just prior to the election, stated that the Democrats intended to nuke the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. I think we should go with his recommendation!

[Notthemomma]

People—regular people—come here and ask for help with such issues because they don’t know even what words to put into a search to get good quick results, don’t trust search engines to find what they need (due to rigged biased search engines, and aren’t they all???), and are unsure how to interpret merely technical results. In addition, a given search result might look good and thorough, but might be outdated or even incorrect or biased (for example, if it’s a wiki or huffingandpuffington source). So, I suggest that whenever we can, especially for those “in the know,” let’s be constructive and offer specific tips and suggestions and caveats, and not just point people to nebulous search engines.

[deport]

Thanks a million for your reply.

[Jim Noble]

Quite complicated, and the most complicated question - “do Senate rules carry over to the next Congress?” has never been resolved.

With regard to the rules AS THEY EXIST TODAY: Judicail nominees cannot be filibustered, EXCEPT SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. This was the result of a compromise which allowed Harry Reid NOT to invoke the “nuclear option” the last time he was majority leader.

More broadly, each House of Congress has a plenary and un-reviewable power to make its own rules. One of the Senate’s rules is that you can’t change the rules during a session without a 2/3 majority.

[deport]

I agree that search engines can be aggravating at times. But I personally
like to see the various opinions even if I don't agree or read them all.

Take care and thanks for your comments.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

But then under the heading, “Payback is hell....”, they probably shouldn’t because someday the Dems are likely to get back the Senate.....

If Donald and the r's make voting reform a priority and strong enough there will never again be a democrat in the oval office.

[Arlis]

Excellent point.