The irony was that talk radio called for republicans to do the same for judges make it 51, if they did Health Care Reform would be passed last July. Because the moderates (RINOs) Gang of 14 stopped it, they had to get 60 for health reform. Moderate democrats wont dare change the rule now.
I thought talk radio was right at the time but they were wrong.
Not quite. The proposed rule change dealt solely with the President's appointment power and the Senate's advise and consent role. It did not pertain to legislation.
The Gang of 14 thus has nothing to do with the healthcare debate.
Not accurate. The role of advice and consent for appointments is a mandatory duty of the Senate. The so-called "nuclear option" was not to reduce the number needed for filibuster, but rather to require a full Senate vote on appointments, because filibuster unconstitutionally prevented the Senate from doing their sworn duty. The nuke option was to force a Constitutional crisis that would require a SCOTUS ruling. Day-to-day legislation would still have been subject to normal filibuster rules.
BTW: the cloture vote used to be 66 votes. The Dems reduced it in the 70's in a power play.
Not accurate. The role of advice and consent for appointments is a mandatory duty of the Senate. The so-called "nuclear option" was not to reduce the number needed for filibuster, but rather to require a full Senate vote on appointments, because filibuster unconstitutionally prevented the Senate from doing their sworn duty. The nuke option was to force a Constitutional crisis that would require a SCOTUS ruling. Day-to-day legislation would still have been subject to normal filibuster rules.
BTW: the cloture vote used to be 66 votes. The Dems reduced it in the 70's in a power play.
I know lots of people here wanted to go “nuclear” on the judge issue when Republicans controlled the Senate. In hindsight, that gang of 14 agreement allowed the confirmation of a number of Bush appointees to the courts. A few were still filibustered or not given votes at all, but most were confirmed. Yes, if they had just done away with filibusters then, we would have already seen Obamacare passed. The threat of filibuster has been the only Republican weapon against a Democrat president combined with strong Democrat control of Congress.
Nah. They could have done it exactly the ways rats operate - change it for the circumstance they need it changed for; then change it back again right away.
As I recall, what they wanted Frist to do was to make it 51 for appointments but keep it 60 for legislation.
For appointments, the question can never be anything other than “Shall Mr./Madame X be appointed to position Y?”
Whereas with legislation, an amendment can always be offered that changes the political calculus.
I recall Rush saying “If the White House received letters from 51 senators saying “I approve of this nomination,” would it be necessary to have a floor vote at all?