Democracy Returns to the Senate

New York Times ^ | November 21, 2013 | Editorial Board

[Oldeconomybuyer]

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.

Democrats made the filibuster change with a simple-majority vote, which Republicans insisted was a violation of the rules. There is ample precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously. Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.

[Ouderkirk]

the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control

Source for this ? Not that I don't believe you but it would be nice to cite it when challenged on such a statement..

[Jane Long]

Amen. NYT won’t report that little detail, will they?

[Venturer]

You can always count on the New York Times to fellate Democrats.

They eat their cereal in the morning with Dem Dingles on it.

[Leaning Right]

...why does the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control of the Senate?

I have not been able to find this "clause".

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps a procedural change such as this only applies to the current Senate, and automatically expires when a new Senate is seated (in 2015).

[RichInOC]

Dissent is patriotic...unless you’re dissenting against a Democrat.

[a fool in paradise]

I couldn't find the language of the "rule change" and the news doesn't want to go into it.

I've looked over today's Congressional record and don't see the vote or details:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r113:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20131120)

And I've looked at the activity today:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/11_20_2013_Senate_Floor.htm

[a fool in paradise]

I read it in an FR thread, I’ve done some searching myself but so far cannot find the specific wording of the rule change.

[Chode]

if it only takes 51%, why even bother, the fix is in, and we're screwed...

[Ouderkirk]

I saw that comment too. I think that they were referring to the idea that a new senate, whether republicans are in control or not sets their own rules. And by inference then if the RATS retain control this goes forward, but if it changes hands then the RATS will start caterwauling about the injustice of it, etc.

[Tench_Coxe]

Paybacks can be a real bitch.
This should be used in the future to begin systematically dismantling the democrat criminal network.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Really, then why does the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control of the Senate?

Says who?

[a fool in paradise]

Democrats DID flip-flop legislation when it was possible that Mitt Romney may have selected John Kerry’s Senate replacement (it was changed to require an election, rather than selection). Then when Red Ted Kennedy kicked the bucket it was changed to have the governor select the narrow fillibuster proof majority replacement.

And the Rats are screaming “never has it been so partisan in blocking votes” except when Ted Kennedy was blocking Bush’s nominees 8 years ago.

As the kicker one Dem pol said that the Republicans don’t want to acknowledge Obama won two elections. Bush was denied his election night victory twice and barking moonbats claimed both were stolen.

Who is it that cooked the census figures last year??? Who is it that lied about Obamacare/HUACA?

[Ingtar]

This editorial would have a totally different view if Republicans had pulled this stunt.

So did Harry Reid when the GOP mentioned it.

[Yogafist]

"Paybacks can be a real bitch."

That is probably the most disappointing thing about this action. I don't see the current crop of Republicans doing anything about this, and I believe a certain group of them would lead the fight to reinstate this rule if the Democrats lost power.

[Repeal 16-17]

Reid's so shameless that he'll probably be singing the filibuster's praises when the Senate Republicans are back to being the majority.

[John S Mosby]

Kennedy— a 4th rate mind centered in his crotch and liver. His treatment of Judge Bork should NEVER be forgotten. Much to roast for and hopefully is doing so now— dipping his wick in and out of a searing hot mass of hellish protoplasm. One can dream.

[Sopater]

What they mean is “Democracy Defeats Republicanism in the Senate”

[Steven Tyler]

Reid took away the Senate Republicans right to advise and CONSENT

[Ouderkirk]

I’m not questioning the democRATS ...we know they are scum, every last one of them. I just wanted to verify that they actually were stupid enough to put such a thing (the reversion bit) in writing.

[Tzimisce]

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

Walking in the Opposition's Shoes NYT March 25, 2005