Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that he was proposing a historic change to Senate rules that would get rid of the filibuster for most presidential nominations.
“It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Reid said in a lengthy floor speech on Thursday morning.

The changes Reid proposed would get rid of filibusters on most judicial and executive branch nominees, but preserve the filibuster for Supreme Court picks. Reid is prepared to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” – which would change the rules by a simple majority vote, instead of 67 votes, according to leadership aides.

“These nominees deserve at least an up or down vote, yes or no,” Reid said. “But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote, any vote, and deny the president his team.”

To get the wheels in motion, Reid called up the nomination of Patricia Millett to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for another vote, one of three previously blocked judges in the last month, including Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins. In effect, Reid is daring Republicans to block Millett again. If a second go-round on Millett fails, Reid would likely unilaterally move to change the rules of the Senate by a majority vote — the “nuclear option,” Senate sources said.

Searching to find a way to break the impasse, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called for the Senate to adjourn for five hours to give some breathing room for a deal. That motion failed 46-54.

Underscoring the historic nature of Reid’s threat, nearly all 100 senators were seated at their desks in the chamber — a rare sight, particularly when the Senate opens in the morning for business.

McConnell was quick to criticize Reid’s plan, accusing Democrats of trying to divert attention from the embattled health care law that has been a drag on the party. McConnell said Democrats were cooking up a “fake fight over judges that aren’t even needed.”

“You’ll regret this and you might regret it even sooner than you might think,” McConnell warned.

And Congress’s top Republican charged that Reid is trying to distract the public away from the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

“Sounds to me like Harry Reid is trying to change the subject,” said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “If I were taking all the incoming fire that he’s taken over Obamacare, I’d try to change the subject, too.”

Privately, Senate Democratic leaders insist they prefer confirmation of Obama’s nominees rather than a rules change. And lawmakers have been at this point before. But increasingly even longtime protectors of the Senate’s rules have been changing their tune, including Vice President Joe Biden, who said he supported Reid’s effort on Thursday morning.

The rules change being discussed among top Democrats would eliminate filibusters on all executive nominees as well as all judicial nominees, except those to the Supreme Court. Such a rules change would pave the path toward smoother confirmation for two more key Obama nominees: Janet Yellen to lead the Federal Reserve and Jeh Johnson to helm the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans are publicly warning that the change would simply be a path to eliminating the filibuster on everything, even on legislation — which would mean when the GOP takes the majority, Democrats will regret pushing the nuke button.

“You always have to take it seriously. I just think it would be incredibly short-sighted,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Republican whip. “It just seems to be something they keep coming back to when [Democrats] don’t get their way.”

A change to Senate’s age-old rules still could be headed off by a last-minute deal with Republicans, but a leadership source was bearish on such a breakthrough. The Senate came to the brink of a more narrow rules change that would have affected only executive nominees this summer but longtime lawmakers like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were able to agree to help move a series of stalled nominations and avoid diluting the minority’s power.

This time around there hasn’t been as strong an effort to head off the rules change. McCain made an offer on Wednesday that Democrats found insufficient because it didn’t include all three judges; Reid says he won’t settle for less than filling out the 11-seat court’s three vacancies.

But not all Democrats are wedded to a rules change, and some are proactively working to figure out if the “nuclear option” can be avoided. One of those, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), helped avoid the “nuclear option” in 2005 when Republicans were trying to change the rules to circumvent Democratic filibusters of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

“Democrats and Republicans are talking, that’s always good. I’m one of those talking, no breaking news, just talking to see where people are on things,” Pryor said in an interview Wednesday.

Several other centrist Democrats, like Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, also say publicly they are undecided. But Manchin blasted Republicans’ reasoning for blocking the judges under the argument that the court isn’t busy enough and that President Barack Obama is trying to “pack” the powerful D.C. Circuit.

“You’re saying just because they’re being presented from a Democrat president? That’s not a good enough reason,” Manchin said.
In addition to Wilkins, Pillard and Millett, Republicans also blocked the elevation of Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency and a fourth D.C. Circuit nominee in March, Caitlin Halligan. A fifth nominee, Sri Srinivasan, was confirmed to the court unanimously in May.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread does not in any way involve the Senate President Pro tem setting off a fusion bomb while screaming "Come Get Some!"


Frazzled disappoint.

 whembly wrote:
Hey...this guy said changing the Filibuster rules is un-American and illegal:

“Think about it: The Majority Leader promised over and over again that he wouldn’t break the rules of the Senate in order to change them. On July 14 he went on ‘Meet the Press’ and he said: ‘We’re not touching judges.’
“He may as well just have said ‘If you like the rules of the Senate you can keep them.’

 Breotan wrote:
... partisans are so predictable.

PhantomViper wrote:
So removing stuff that is preventing your government from doing some actual governance is bad because?

Or is this just another example of: "we don't wan't the people that the majority of the US citizens actually voted for to actually do something"? The Democrats won the Senate, don't you think that its past time that the Republicans actually abide by the will of the America people instead of just trying to sandbag everything?

If these types of shenanigans happened over here in the Communist Paradise of Europe you'd have riots on the streets...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can someone explain why this is bad? Fillibusters are horrible tactics used by desperate people.

Looks like Obamacare can now be repealed with 51 votes. Excellent.

— Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) November 21, 2013

 Easy E wrote:
If this is just going to be a another right-wing circle jerk thread like the Obamacare Exchanges thread, can I at least get a reach around?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If this is just going to be a another right-wing circle jerk thread like the Obamacare Exchanges thread, can I at least get a reach around?

Yes you can, but in order to do so, you'll have to enter into the federal Reach Around Exchange, where you can be given bronze, silver, or gold plans available for all of your reach around needs. The Bronze reach around will only cover about 60% of your reach around needs, it's perfect for those younger people that don't always need a full reach around, and in fact they're the basis of the entire reach around exchange. Just enough coverage to get you by . The Silver and Gold plans are for people that want reach arounds for their families, and to cover 75 to 90 percent of their needs. Unfortunately, the top 10 Reach Around organizations are only going to accept one or two (if you're lucky) coverage plans.

If you like your dutch rudder companion, you can keep your dutch rudder companion. Period.

 whembly wrote:
1. Packing the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This court is important because most challenges to federal regulations go through that court. A small number of those cases may make it to the Supreme Court but generally, it's the last word on a lot of federal business.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why the concern? I don't think the Senate has actually voted on anything since 2009...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
1. Packing the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This court is important because most challenges to federal regulations go through that court. A small number of those cases may make it to the Supreme Court but generally, it's the last word on a lot of federal business.

Something I'm confused about, how is filling vacant spaces on the court, something which can and should be done no matter which administration is in charge, packing the court. When FDR asked for 9 (I think it was 9) more supreme court justices that was packing the court. FDR wanted that because the supreme court was blocking his legislation. If the democrats were packing the court of appeals, they would be adding more justices than should be serving on it, not filling empty spaces.

Personally I think the current filibuster rules are rather odd. When you have two competing viewpoints in such close numbers, nothing gets done. If they want to stop a law they should campaign against it. Telling people what they think is wrong with it, and trying to get the citizenry up in arms about it. If the majority of Americans don't want the law, it will probably be stopped. All you have to do is to look at SOPA and PIPA to see that. And if that doesn't work, have a good old-fashioned filibuster.

 d-usa wrote:


But precedent is now set, so what comes around...