I'm confused about senate rules

[refermech]

Did the democrats do away with the 60 vote rule to end debate? Will this apply to The next supreme court nominee or will the dems be able to filibuster our nominee? Thanks for any clarification!

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Bkmrk

[MIDad23]

I believe that the filibuster rule no longer applies to judicial appointments. Chuck Shumer repealed it so they could ram through some of Obama’s apointments.

[Arlis]

Since the Dems love the popular vote so much, were one vote decides the whole matter, the Repubs in the Senate should institute it - called “the nuclear option.”

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

[ExSES]

Just google it..., several websites describe the process. Essentially, 51 votes required both to overcome a “Hold” on a nomination and to confirm a nominee...

[vikingd00d]

IIRC, each Senate sets its own rules. The pubby establishment COULD allow the Rats to filibuster in order to thwart Trump, but that’s HIGHLY unlikely.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Each incoming Senate vote at the beginning on the rules of the Senate. In the past it has been tradition to have the filibuster as a rule for the Senate. Reid did away with it for lower court appointments. No Supreme Court nominee has ever been filibustered to my knowledge. If the threat was there, the President usually withdrew the nomination. Bork was voted down and then Reagan nominated Kennedy.

[LostPassword]

Reid ended the filibuster for lower court appointments and a few other positions.

He tried to claim that it only applied to a very narrow set of decisions and Rs would be wrong to broaden it in the future.

But it was a fundamental change in philosophy. He crossed the line and said the simple majority can enforce their will on the minority if the simple majority thinks that's best.

I personally think the Rs should not throw the filibuster out. A simple majority should not make significant changes at the federal level even when I'm in that majority and there are HUGE problems that need to be addressed. I'd guess I'm in the minority on that. My hope with Trump is that he can be persuasive to Ds in congress and get things done with broad support. If Ds aren't involved they will work to undo anything rather than work to fix things (like Rs when left out of Obamacare)

[deport]

Google can provide you with various answers/discussions on the topic. enjoy.

[RAldrich]

Lower-level judicial nominations can be approved by a simple majority. But in the case of nominations to the Supreme Court, the ability to filibuster remains in place.

[ScottinVA]

Lower court confirmations, but not for SCOTUS appointments nor legislation.

[be-baw]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2016/11/10/will-democrats-be-able-to-block-trumps-supreme-court-nominations/#279431873421

The article linked above answers all your questions.

[TRY ONE]

And ObamaCare can be voted on (repealed) with a simple majority (51) by calling it “Budget Reconciliation”! Otherwise, it would be subject to a Filibuster!

Comments?

[Phlyer]

He crossed the line and said the simple majority can enforce their will on the minority if the simple majority thinks that's best.

I personally think the Rs should not throw the filibuster out.

The Dims will throw out the filibuster on any issue they want the next time they are in the majority. I think there is merit in keeping the filibuster, but only if it applies when the Dims are in the majority as well, and I don't see any way that continues.

I think it's important that the Dims agreed to the traditional rules of the Senate when they had their organizing resolutions, but as soon as they didn't like the filibuster, they changed it in mid-session with a simple majority vote. They will do the same again.

The only reason that Reid changed it for less-than-Supreme Court nominations only is because they weren't filibustering Supreme Court nominations. If they had been filibustering Supreme Court nominations, they would have eliminated the filibuster on those as well. Or on any other topic where they couldn't get their way.

[notdownwidems]

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

Doesn't matter, if the republicans were foolish enough not to use it because they think it would forestall the democrats from doing it, that is fool's thinking...the democrats will do whatever they want to, regardless of precedent, as long as it advances their cause.

[refermech]

Thanks for the link!!

[only1percent]

There is a filibuster for Cabinet members and Supreme Court nominees, but a very strong tradition against actually using it — even Reid wouldn’t use it in 2005 against Roberts or Alito. There is no longer a filibuster for lower-court nominees, although there is a separate systems of “holds” designed more to preserve the power of individual Senators to influence appointments in their states, than for partisan purposes.

[BarbM]

“Google can provide you with various answers/discussions on the topic. enjoy.”
________________________________

I'd rather get my information from a person on FR who actually knows something. I suspect most of us would.
Hey Captain obvious, your suggestion is weak & obscure, and wasted my time.

Now that Trump won, there are 2 classes: first or last. There is no middle. Your reply was middle.

[Sacajaweau]

The filibuster was always applied to legislation. Then someone decided to scr** the ........

[Sacajaweau]

Plenty of Dems want out of Obamacare.