Why don't Democrats threaten the "Nuclear option" like the GOP did?

[Armstead]

(I also posted this in the Presidential forum but thought it was important because it has not been not discussed on DU or elsewhere so am also posting it here. Mods, take it away of you must.)

Another poster, Overseas, just recalled what the GOP used to keep Democrats in line when they had the majority. The nuclear option.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What's been preventing us from threatening to push that button?

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.<1>

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances."

[anonymous171]

1. Democrats don't have the resolve.

[doc03]

2. Because they are a bunch of spineless wimps n/t

[Echo In Light]

3. Phony "oppositional" (to corporate rule) party. Collusion, not 'cowardice.'

[Birthmark]

14. +1

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Yup. That's what I say, too.

They're trying to look like they're trying.

[mzmolly]

4. I think we may have, if the HC bill had become more popluar after House negotiations.

Though, the matter is now dead because we don't have 60 votes in the Senate or enough in the house to pass the Senate version.

[Armstead]

8. I think -- (not sure, which is why I'm asking) -- it only reqiures a simple majority

I'm puzzled that -- if this is an option -- why the Democrats didn't float the threat of it earlier in the HR process, to defuse the power of the nelson obstructionists, and maybe get a few GOPers on board.

Water under the bridge now, I realize, but the option is still available.

[mzmolly]

9. I'm sure it's because we hadn't crossed the last hurdle.

The house has to approve the final bill before your suggestion is even an issue.

This is my understanding anyhow. :shrug:

[Armstead]

11. I was thinkin about earlier...You know, just dropping a few hints to the GOP and the Dem obstructors

Kinda like in those movies "Ya know you got a really nice joint here. It'd be a shame if someone brought a nuclear option in here if you don't play ball with us...."

[mzmolly]

13. I think the timing would have to be right before we can threaten such a move.

That's why I was so concerned about the notion of "kill the bill" because we didn't have a final bill and we didn't give the house a chance to tweak it. :(

[bobbolink]

5. It would require a spinal transplant, and their health care won't cover it.

[begin_within]

6. Afraid to offend their corporate overlords?

[kentuck]

7. Maybe the Repubs should be given "credit" for what they've accomplished?

With only 40 votes, they dragged out the healthcare debate for over a year and now it appears dead in the water. With only 40 votes, they were able to stop the 60-majority Democrats from getting almost anything done. With such a diminished minority, they have accomplished a great deal. If stopping the Democrats is considered an "accomplishment"?

[umyeah]

21. How does....

....40 votes stop a super majority? 60 gets it done, right? I mean, if the Democrats simply agree on things, as the Repubs did, they pass the legislation. At least I think that's how it works.....

[Ganja Ninja]

10. Because they don't cater to insignificant liberals.

They only take their money and support.

[harun]

12. Because they like blaming the Repub's for not accomplishing anything.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Because they don't have 66 votes to change it right now...

And even if they can change it when the next Congress sits in 2011 with a simple majority, getting rid of it, or even reducing the requirment to say, 56, won't appeal to either side who want to be able to use it as a weapon or as an exuse not to get things done that the people want.

Remember, Republicans only threatened, and complained a lot, they didn't do it. It gave them cover for not doing things that their own side wanted, changing the Constitution to end abortion, or a whole list of culture war issues.

That is how I se it.

[Armstead]

18. According to Wikepedia it only tales a majority

And was the threat that got Democrats to avoid a filibuster when the GOP had the majority.

I could be wrong, which is one reason I am asking

[Ozymanithrax]

19. While the Congress is sitting, it takes 66 votes. Now, when the new congress sits...

From everything I've read, while the congress is in Session, it takes 66 votes to change rule 22, by their rules.

From wikipedia: Nuclear option

A formal change to the Senate's rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).<2>

This is another article about changing rule 22.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jan/05/senate-rules-negate-majority-rule/

There is an argument, actually made by Senator Byrd in 1978, that Senators could invoke the Constitution and force a vote on a Senate rule with only a majority vote. His threat was enough to end an attempt to filibuster his rule changes. So there is an option to change it by simple majority. It would require a quick trip to the SCOTUS to get an answer. It would be an interesting attempt, but with the current mix of the Court I am not sure that they would rule in favor of changing the rules in accordance with the Constitution. They certainly were willing to ignore precedent with Election law and allowed the FBI to wire tap Americans without a writ of Habeas Corpus.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf


***
Edited for spelling and to add a link...

[B Calm]

17. They're using the 60 vote bullshit to hide their allegiance to their corporate masters!

[umyeah]

20. They have several times.....

....but to do so would all but seal their fate in November. The R's didn't do it, and neither should the D's.

[Igel]

25. That pretty much sums it up.

Threats are fine, but if you're not going to follow through what's the point?

So the repubs threatened and a solution was found, one that made the nuclear option unnecessary. It put limits on */repubs and on dems, whether you like where the limits were or not, and all went on.

Meanwhile, every dem of note has video of them screaming how the nuclear option would be the Most Horrible Thing To Befall Civilization--and that's just concerning nominations in the Senate, as opposed to legislation.

Yeah, we can always say, "They're evil miscreants and they do it, so we want to do it and be just like them. Uh. Sort of."

[Hippo_Tron]

22. My guess is because there is video footage of them all opposing it when the Republicans wanted it

[Umbral]

23. Lieberman. nt

[JDPriestly]

24. Because delaying on health care makes having to pass a bill less likely.

And, for heaven's sake, if they pass a bill like that, the next things on the agenda are energy and the environment, and they haven't fully milked the lobbyists for those industries yet. Remember, there are even more corporations and lobbyists willing to pay off senators for favors in the energy and environmental bills than there were with healthcare.