McConnell Likely To Keep Reid's Simple Majority Rule Change

Well, I hope these former Staffers know what they are talking about. In no way do I believe that the Republicans should change Harry's Nuclear Option back now........when it only hurts them! As McConnell said today....Reid set the precedent and precedents are pretty hard to change. Dems are all worried now that this could be used against THEM! But they had no such concern when it was used regularly against Republicans.


"There is one unpopular Reid rule that McConnell appears unlikely to change: the Democratic majority's invocation of the nuclear option. McConnell spokesman Mike Brumas would not comment on such a change, saying that McConnell would have to discuss the rule change with his conference. But former staffers said that any alteration to the rule that McConnell has railed against (which changed the 60-vote threshold required to approve of executive branch nominees to merely a simple majority) is unlikely. Such a change would hinder the new Republican majority's power.

That will be of particular import early next year, when the Senate is expected to take up President Obama's nomination to succeed outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. Simply put: The nuclear option that Reid put in place could be used against him if Republicans decide to stall the next AG—or if Republicans win the White House in 2016."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/what-to-expect-from-mitch-mcconnell-s-senate-20141105

 

That Blue Blood bas-turd better not change it.

It's time to fight the liberals with the rules they made.

 

If it was wrong for the dems to do it, then it is equally wrong for the repubs to use it. I hope repubs take the high road myself.

 

Although the simple majority rule will apply to most bills, it will not apply to some bills by statue has to revceive a 2/3 majority. That being said, the Dems still have enough votes to effectively use the filligbuster threat to block msome bills. But the Dems need to use that aas a last resort like, personhood bills.

 

One reason it's called the nuclear option is that resulting political fallout has a way of blowing back into the faces of the initiators as well as the intended target group. Reid knew that it was a really bad idea but he decided to go for the short term benefit (just like a leftist) and ignored the possible consequences to his own party down the line.

Well it's in place now and the Republicans are in charge, and they will be too busy working to fix all the things Obama's screwed up to fiddle with changing a rule that Reid saw fit to engage . . . and thus we have political fallout. Welcome to r-e-a-l-i-t-y and c-o-n-s-e-q-u-e-n-c-e-s leftwingers.

PS: I remember warning leftwingers about this very issue at the time and they laughed about it; utterly confident that nothing could ever go wrong as a consequence of Reid's decision. They . . . were . . . wrong.

 

I agree, the rule should stay in place... a simple majority will confirm a presidents pick, it's the way it should be even under republican rule I agree with the change

otherwise you have the problems republicans caused before the rule change

.

.

 

Na, the Republicans should use the gift Harry gave them. It's not wrong, it is just the rules of the Senate.

 

He should keep it and he should refer to it as the Reid Rule so Sen. Harry Reid, slimy weasel that he is, can have his legacy.

 

the reason it was changed was it was hurting America, with it not change dems only need a few republicans to approve the change, othewise they need 60 votes, same is true today as then

much easier to get a couple votes than 60 votes for the minority

so it benefits both side, even the minority

republicans though not allowing new leaders in gov would cause it to go south, than they could blame it on Obama...... so the rule was changed

.

 

Can you or anyone explain to me how changing the nuclear option back to the tradition of the senate will hinder the Republican Majority? It seems to me with the majority now the Republicans have veto power over any of the presidents appointments. Whether it is 60 votes or 51. With control of the senate, that rule becomes totally irrelevant. Irrelevant for the next two years anyway.

If I were McConnell I would put it back in place. Come 2016 there will be only 10 Democratic senate seats up for Re-election vs. 24 for the Republicans. Chances are the Democrats will regain the senate then, it is all in the math. Keeping it would only help the Democrats in the senate if a Democrat wins the presidency.

 

Reid did not change the filibuster rule for legislation.

only judicial and executive nominees.

 

they probably will end up doing that, cause they can always change it again if they come into power, that way they can pretend to be taking the high road now

when really, changing it back makes it harder on dems as they would than need 60 votes rather than just a couple, which is the real reason they would change it back

than if democrats win in 2016 they can attack them for it again if they change it back

.

 

The Senate was designed to be difficult so populist garbage did not get through very quickly and that goes for appointments of radical left wing bureaucrats appointed by the most radical left wing President in our history.

 

F the high road.

It's time for some payback.

 

yeah, not sure everyone understands that

- - - Updated - - -

filibuster is the F word, and dems will be using it now for sure if republicans try to pass non-bipartisan bills

republicans do not have 60 votes either...

welcome to the dems world, sucks to be in control but not be able to do what you want doesn't it

.

 

Speaking of the lowlife ! HAS ANYONE SEEN OR HEARD FROM MR .REID ?

 

That is a good point now that I think about it.

 

After last night's massive political reaming from the voters I think he's checked himself in to a CDC run hospital to see if bleeding from all orifices is a normal consequence of that or if instead he unknowingly came into contact with one of Ebola Barry's citizens from one of the virus infested nations.

 

Changing the rule back would also show and be a PR winner about the Republicans being the party to protect minority rights. At least the minority party rights.

 

So you supported Harry in making this rule change?

- - - Updated - - -

Payback against who, the american people?

 

The old rule was a bad rule.

Let 51 votes decide presidential appointments.

 

What's done is done. Dems should live by the rules they make. It's called being 'fair', a typical talking point for dems.

 

Actually it was designed with certain super-majority stipulations in the Constitution, like treaties, amendments, etc.. Both Houses are free to make their rules as they see fit.

The whole Senate filibuster idea is nothing more than traditionalism and conceived "fair play".

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 [Appointment Clause]:

There is nothing in there that even remotely suggests that anything more than a simple majority is required. If one Congress suggests a mere majority, it has no bearing if the next Congress decided on 67% of votes. They are free to change certain rules as they see fit.

 

The rule as it is still allows filibusters on all legislation.

as it should be.

 

That is true and the point. The rules are whatever they make them to be. There are no right or wrong rules but I warned the dems that if Reid changed the rules it could come back to bite them but I think that hubris made many think they could not lose the Senate.