General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy doesnt the senate gop destroy the last vestiges of the fillibuster to fund their wall?
spanone
(135,836 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)unblock
(52,235 posts)when democrats control the white house, the house, and the senate.
at that point, the legislative filibuster is all they have (outside of the supreme court).
Me.
(35,454 posts)20/20 has lots of Con Senators up for re-election and a much smaller number of Dems. If Dems take the Senate and are not held back by the 60 vote rule they can pass whatever they want. Goose and Gander scenario.
calimary
(81,267 posts)The numbers, and prospects, are WAY better for our side. Things dont stack up as well or as easy for the CONS in 2020. Theyre quite vulnerable, and I suspect that vulnerability will grow. We actually could take back the Senate. So at least that would stop any further court packing.
Me.
(35,454 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)McConnell should have done it in 2017. He didn't.
hatrack
(59,587 posts)That's why.
dem4decades
(11,296 posts)kysrsoze
(6,021 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)brooklynite
(94,572 posts)The whole point of this debate is whether the Republicans would throw the current rules out.
FBaggins
(26,739 posts)The "nuclear" option involved an appeal of a parliamentary ruling that the filibuster rules applied to appointments. That was something of an open question since the Constitution arguably involves some action related to "advice and consent". They were essentially claiming that the Senate has the power to set its own rules, but not where they conflict with constitutional duties.
In such a case, the Senate itself determines the meaning of its own rules and a simple majority was sufficient.
It's arguable (and my personal position) that there is no way to interpret away the filibuster when it comes to legislation. The same process could be followed to try and "nuke" it... but I'd bet that a court would be willing step in and say "Congress is due great deference in interpreting their own rules, but that can't extend to directly contradicting the clear wording of those rules"
Johnny2X2X
(19,066 posts)At least a hand full would vote against it in the nuclear option.