Posted on 12/04/2014 1:11:24 PM PST by cotton1706
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) says Senate Republicans should reverse the so-called nuclear option, which Democrats used to reduce the threshold for confirming executive and judicial branch nominees to a simple majority vote.
Lott said incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should reverse the change of precedent Senate Democrats made last year to defang GOP filibusters against President Obama’s nominees.
Since then, Obama has stocked the federal courts, including the pivotal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with his picks. Republicans are split over whether they should keep the precedent in place now that they are poised to take control of the chamber. They will meet on Dec. 9 to discuss their options.
Lott said restoring the minority party’s power to filibuster nominees could help improve the Senate’s bilious atmosphere.
“I would hope that they would reverse the nuclear option. That would be a sign that we’re not going to have things that way,” he said at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. “I think it would help get them off on the right foot.”
Lott said he told McConnell and his staff “that I hope they would do that.”
Under regular order, a rules change requires 67 votes, but outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) circumvented the high hurdle by overturning the ruling of the Senate parliamentarian with a party-line, majority vote.
The tactic is known as the nuclear option because it is seen as antithetical to the Senate’s traditions of operating through consent. Critics say the move severely damaged the fabric of the upper chamber.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Oh, wait a minute. I think I get it...
“I don’t know, a large number of Obama nominees might find the 4 necessary RINO votes to be confirmed.”
The power to bring nominees to the floor rests with the Majority Leader, and as far as I know, there’s nothing similar to the discharge petition to force a vote if the Majority Leader decides to let the nominees stew (or the chairman of the appropriate committee for that matter).
Of course the problem with this is that McConnell is easily swayed by the democrats, AND the RINOS.
I’m just tired of this “let’s make this difficult for a republican president to get judges, etc. but easy for the democrats.” I didn’t see John McCain and his cronies forming a Gang of 14 when Harry Reid changed the filibuster rule, because his goal in 2005 was to prevent Bush’s judges, not “preserving the process.”
Fair is fair. 51 for thee, well then 51 for me!
Right, right. Good.
Nutcases also make it through the filibuster.
Anyone who made it through the Committee would have made it through a filibuster too.
Maybe there are other reasons for renewing the filibuster, but “belt and suspenders” isn’t persuasive because both are subject to the same political manipulations so they aren’t complimentary but redundant.
Well, based upon a plurality of “votes” on this thread, it looks as though we collectively are comfortable with KEEPING Harry Reid’s (Obama nominee friendly) 51 vote closure threshold for Obama’s judicial nominees.
The consensus is that we think the Judicial Committee (packed with a minority of ‘RATS who will vote as a block, and a slight majority of Republicans, MANY of whom are RINOS who will vote the nominees out of committee) will keep Obama’s activist appointees bottled up in committee.
And the consensus is that we think that any of Obama’s activist appointees who get out of committee will be stopped by the “well known hard line conservative” Mitch McConnell.
And the consensus is that any that get past McConnell to a floor vote will be voted down despite the presence of 46 ‘RATS and MORE than 5 “Republicans” who will vote for Obama’s nominees to “be fair”.
Why is it that the Republicans are called THE STUPID PARTY again?
Hmmm....hard to believe....if they threw Mary Landrieu under the bus they’ll do the same to others.
Are you sure? As I recall Bork was sent to the floor with an unfavorable recommendation.
I disagree. I recall favoring the majority threshold when Republicans were in power (for nominees) and the 60-vote threshold for legislation.
I want to say that on rare occasions when liberal nominees are defeated it’s because they have lost the PR war. Conservatives are the ones who don’t get the up-or-down vote.
It should not be the Majority Leader’s choice to set the bar. Back in the day, it took 2/3 vote to get the Democrat presidential nomination. It took a 2/3 vote of the convention to overturn that rule. (It happened in 1948 as I recall).
Also back in the day it required a 2/3 vote to reduce the cloture rule to 60 votes. In 1975, the Senate voted by a 2/3 margin to reduce cloture from 2/3 to 3/5.
Now under Robert’s Rules (which the Senate does not operate under), a rule cannot be suspended without the consent of the minority larger than it is designed to protect. (That is, the cloture rule should have required a 3/5 vote to exempt nominees from the filibuster rule. So far as I can figure it received only majority consent.
But now that we have it, it should stay that way. It’s not fair to have a lower standard for Democrat nominees and a higher standard for conservative nominees.
no. your calculation is flawed.
Trent Lott. Worthless as warm spit.
I distinctly remember the senate vote to convict clinton after he was impeached. I was watching the proceedings on CSPAN. Just before the vote, I noticed lott backslapping and laughing with tom daschle..and knew the fix was in..I haven’t voted since.
#72 and 73
The fix? There didn’t need to be a fix, there were 45 rats and 5 liberal RINOs in that Senate. Removal takes 67.
any other web site would ZOT somebody for bragging about non0voting. Suppress our vote. Peeples read this site, ya know!
You were right to mock him.
No one?
That's what I thought.
STFU Trent. You had your turn.
The fix? There didn’t need to be a fix, there were 45 rats and 5 liberal RINOs in that Senate. Removal takes 67.
I didn’t recall the numbers..thanks. My point is that lott was huffing and puffing about holding clinton “accountable” for his transgressions..and then ..nothing. Here we are years later with the same ineffective “leadership” from the rep’s...Meanwhile, our beloved country is being destroyed..and they could care less..all talk, all the time.
Trent is jealous at all the attention his old comrade and rival Thad got lasy year. MS people haven’t a clue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.