First of all liberals can not come up with an idea of their own. Second: they are famous for making up rules as they go along. If you recall it was Tommy Daschel who made up the rule of 60 votes. Now they don't like it and want to change it again.
Yesterday a lib congressman on MSNBC claimed a change in Senate rules takes 67 votes which contradicts both points above.
He obviously did not know what he was talking about
I think the failure to change the rules in 2006 was part of what saved us from single payer, or at least a public plan. DINOs now would be terrified to go along after the gang of 14 actions.
He obviously did not know what he was talking about
It takes 67 votes to change the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Those rules allow for certain budget related items to be passed with 51 votes, in a process called reconciliation .
Those rules also allow a member who has made a point of order on the floor of the Senate, and lost, to appeal to the Senate as a body. In that case, 51 votes can over rule the presiding officer, and the point of order is sustained.
The "nuclear option" that got the libs all worked up when the Republicans last held the Senate, was a threat that a Republican would raise a point of order that the filibuster rule (meaning you need 60 votes to cut off debate) does not apply to votes to confirm, or reject, Presidential nominations. The Standing Rules do not specifically state that they do, or do not, apply to filibusters. The filibuster has never, until recently, been used to block a vote on a Presidential nominee who has the support of the majority of the Senators. 51 votes would have been enough for the Republicans to interpret the filibuster rules to not apply to votes to confirm, or reject, Presidential nominations.
The Democrats cannot pass huge portions of Obamacare under reconciliation, because the bill would not be a budgetary one. Some of their more rabid supporters are urging them to use the "51 votes can over the chair on a point of order rule" to pass Obamacare, by "interpreting" the Obamacare bill to be budgetary, when it would clearly not be.