The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules.
Whoops. I should have directed that post to Hendrix in post 8
"The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules."
I am willing to take that chance. Again, that is the problem with Republicans: they are too worried about what might happen. The democrats are always going to not play fair, so no matter what we do to show that we are playing fair (not revoking that rule) will be of no use if they want to do it when and if they get back in power (they will revoke it in a heart beat to stop a minority of republicans). QUIT WORRING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN!
Once-Ler sez: The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules.
OO sez: The constitution enumerates that a majority of Senators are needed to confirm judicial nominees. That is what should apply - Republican or Democrat. If the 'Rats can regain power and convince 51 Senators to support a nominee, God bless them, that nominee will be (and should be) confirmed.
What you will not find in the Constitution is any reference to a de facto 60-vote supermajority needed for confirmation of judges, which is why the bogus filibuster rule must go, consequences be damned.
I think what is being considered is a rules change only for appointments to the federal judiciary and the executive branch, in accordance with the advice-and-consent function of the Senate (which is abrogated by filibustering appointments). Filibustering of legislation (i.e., bills pending before the Senate) would still be allowable.
The "nuclear option" is not about doing away with the filubuster entirely. It merely puts judicial nominations off limits to filibusters. So this would not be turning the Senate into the House
As to the what if we fall out of power scenario. You know what will happen. We'll confirm their judges 98-0 like we did for Ruth Bader Gisnburg. For a pascifist to give up his weaponry is no sacrifice at all.
Fillibusters on judges is wrong.
I don't care who is in charge.
You can use various procedural maneuvers to delay and get the minority view in there, but don't fillibuster.
It only sets a precedent on filibusters of judicial nominees, and it is only a Senate rule. I don't like changing that rule either, but given the option of judges who interpret the Constitution after actually reading its plain language first or keeping the filibuster, I'll take the judges, thanks.