You remember "The Nuclear Option"?

[ThomWV]

Well fuck the Republicans and any threat they want to make about filibustering much of anything. The Senate makes its own rules and right now we are in the rule-making driver's seat. It could be the first thing the new Senate does - make a new rule of 50%+1 and that would be the end of the Republican influence on american politics for at least the very necessary next two years.

[tritsofme]

1. Rules changes require a supermajority.

Trying to do it any other way would likely put a halt to all Senate business.

[Blarch]

2. Obama will get the votes, don't sweat it.

[jgraz]

3. Good luck getting Droopy Harry to do it.

Who would he have to blame for getting nothing done?

[ikojo]

4. Democrats lack a certain body part to

threaten the nuclear option.....

[AndyTiedye]

5. It Would Go to the Supreme Court, and YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS

[Igel]

6. Yes.

Do you?

It covered one kind of motion, and only one kind of motion: Motions that could not be amended (and even then, of a certain type--it didn't even cover all motions that couldn't be amended).

Some people lose not just the nuance, but the entire meaning, in trying to say it covered all motions of any kind. The Senate makes its own rules, and those can be just and fair or unjust and unfair.

Amending the rules to prevent fillibusters on motions that could not be amended wouldn't have ended all debate: It would have limited debate. When it comes to 'advise and consent', when ultimately the vote will be up or down on a candidate, there's only so much to say, and the rights of the minority (whether in Congress or in the population represented by Congress) aren't seriously at issue. However, many dems and liberals (not always the same thing) had serious problems with this, *on principle*. While I'm not sure I entirely agreed with the principle, I can respect the position enough to say that the principles involved were probably serious enough to constitute a good argument against the "nuclear option". I don't see that the principles have changed in the least.

When it comes to legislation, there's often new stuff to say late in the game. Ending debate is a much more serious issue, and rights of the minority (in Congress and in the population at large) are more at issue. It's much more cut-and-dried that limitations infringe on the rights of the minority. Yes, fillibusters can gum up the works; it is a Congress-internal check and balance.

In other words, the two kinds of motions are sufficiently different that any blanket limitation on debate becomes qualitatively different.

What you say is what a group out of power often says: Hey, oppression is wrong when we suffer--or think we're suffering--from it, but it's no so bad when we do it. Then, since we think we're right and we're the judge, the oppression and unfairness that we impose is by definition good and just. It misses the point: checks and balances are most needed when that viewpoint is in the air, esp. when the same party or group controls both the presidency and Congress. Checks and balances aren't there to service the Democratic Party and us, per se; but they're there to service the country and its people. They were important, and shouldn't have been ignored, when repubs controlled the presidency and the Congress. They'll be no less important in a few weeks when dems control the presidency and the Congress.

[WeDidIt]

7. No way do they remove the requirements for cloture

Dems, unlike the REpublicans, realize that some day they will once again be in the minority.