Read on Twitter
If, like me, you have been trying to understand why the senate democrats can’t just vote to “end the filibuster”the brilliant Cree Hardegree posted an easy to understand explanation on her Facebook page which I will share in this thread
Link:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10158014167813284&set=a.394738373283&comment_id=10158016074183284¬if_id=1611695971835815¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
Link:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10158014167813284&set=a.394738373283&comment_id=10158016074183284¬if_id=1611695971835815¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
In practice, the phrases “use the nuclear option” and “get rid of the filibuster” essentially mean the same thing. “Nuclear option” is the nickname for the parliamentary procedure that allows a bypass around the filibuster for a particular vote.
But once that is done, it establishes a precedent for future votes of that same type, effectively "getting rid of the filibuster" for that category of votes.
At its core, “filibuster” means “talking a bill to death.”
At its core, “filibuster” means “talking a bill to death.”
When a bill is put on the floor by the majority, and the minority knows it doesn’t have enough votes to stop the bill from passing, the minority can keep the bill from going to a vote by “debating” it from now until Jesus comes back.
In past notorious filibusters, the “debate” was a lone senator standing for hours reading the phone book or Sears & Roebuck catalogue. As long as the senator talked continuously, there could be no vote. The goal was to talk until the majority gave up.
It takes 60 senators (“3/5 of the total senators”) to close or “cloture” debate so a vote can be held.
Once debate is ended, it only takes 51 votes to pass the legislation.
This is universally stated incorrectly: “Once a filibuster is invoked, it takes 60 votes to pass a bill.”
Once debate is ended, it only takes 51 votes to pass the legislation.
This is universally stated incorrectly: “Once a filibuster is invoked, it takes 60 votes to pass a bill.”
That’s not accurate.
It takes 60 votes to end the debate/filibuster.
Once debate is ended, it only takes 51 votes to pass the legislation.
The effect is the same — 60 votes are required.
It takes 60 votes to end the debate/filibuster.
Once debate is ended, it only takes 51 votes to pass the legislation.
The effect is the same — 60 votes are required.
But the distinction is important in understanding how the nuclear option works: it involves passing a motion upon which no debate is allowed — you don’t need 60 votes to end the debate, because there is no debate.
Decades ago, the filibuster was rarely used.
Two things changed.
One: In the past, a filibuster ground the senate to a halt — no other business could be conducted while senators were on the floor actively talking a bill to death or “debating.” A “two-track” system was...
Two things changed.
One: In the past, a filibuster ground the senate to a halt — no other business could be conducted while senators were on the floor actively talking a bill to death or “debating.” A “two-track” system was...
...designed so other senate work could proceed while a filibuster was ongoing.
Two: The senate axed “talking filibusters” and started allowing “virtual filibusters” — filibustering senators no longer had to let the world see what huge asses they were...
Two: The senate axed “talking filibusters” and started allowing “virtual filibusters” — filibustering senators no longer had to let the world see what huge asses they were...
...they could cowardly state they were filibustering without having to ever say a single word on the floor of the senate.
Well…. there was a third thing.
We got a black president.
Well…. there was a third thing.
We got a black president.
The filibuster had already come into greater use because it could be done without senators looking bad — other work could proceed as usual and the senator didn’t have to make a public ass of himself.
But the filibuster had never before in the history of our country been used on a permanent continual basis — that practice only started after President Obama was elected.
President Obama saved America with legislation that was as ground-breaking and massive as FDR’s New Deal legislation; he saved the entire financial system; the housing industry; the auto industry; ObamaCare was the most significant legislation since Medicare.
But he did all of that in the six months Dems had 60 seats in the senate; after that, Reps continually blocked everything he wanted to do, even if it was something they originally championed. Their sole goal, as stated by McConnell, was to “make Obama a one-term president.”
The filibuster is a creature of the Senate rules. And Senate rules can only be changed by a two-thirds vote, which is 67 senators, not 60 as required to end debate.
We’ll never "get rid of the filibuster" because we’ll never get 67 senators to go along with it.
We’ll never "get rid of the filibuster" because we’ll never get 67 senators to go along with it.
And that brings us to the workaround, nicknamed “nuclear option.”
Harry Reid was the first to use it in 2013. Democrats were in control of the Senate with Reid at the helm. Our courts were collapsing because McConnell — leader of the Republican minority party...
Harry Reid was the first to use it in 2013. Democrats were in control of the Senate with Reid at the helm. Our courts were collapsing because McConnell — leader of the Republican minority party...
... same job he just dropped down to again — was virtual-filibustering ALL of President Obama’s appointments to the Federal District Courts and U.S. Courts of Appeal.
Nuclear Option:
A virtual (non-talking) filibuster is underway. The majority party needs 60 votes...
Nuclear Option:
A virtual (non-talking) filibuster is underway. The majority party needs 60 votes...
...”for cloture” or “to end debate” or “to stop the filibuster” — three ways of saying the same thing.
The majority only has 51 votes — enough to approve nominees and pass legislation, but not enough to stop the debate in order for a vote to be held.
The majority only has 51 votes — enough to approve nominees and pass legislation, but not enough to stop the debate in order for a vote to be held.
The Majority Leader rises and states a “point of order” to the presiding officer of the Senate.
His point of order: “I move to disregard the rule requiring 60 votes to end debate because it is unconstitutional in that it effectively requires 60 votes for passage and...
His point of order: “I move to disregard the rule requiring 60 votes to end debate because it is unconstitutional in that it effectively requires 60 votes for passage and...
..the constitution doesn’t provide fort a 60-vote threshold.”
The presiding officer denies the point of order on the grounds the request conflicts with the rules of the Senate.
The Majority Leader then appeals the ruling of the presiding officer to the members of the senate.
The presiding officer denies the point of order on the grounds the request conflicts with the rules of the Senate.
The Majority Leader then appeals the ruling of the presiding officer to the members of the senate.
In parliamentary procedures, there is no debate on a motion appealing a ruling of the chair — the vote is immediate.
And what does this mean?
If there is no debate, there is no requirement for 60 votes to end the debate — we go straight to the vote.
And what does this mean?
If there is no debate, there is no requirement for 60 votes to end the debate — we go straight to the vote.
And the required vote to overturn the decision of the chair, just like votes to approve judicial nominees and pass legislation, is 51. The 60-requirement is only for ending debate so a vote can be held. And here, there is no debate to end.
The end result: it only takes 51 Senators to nuke the rule that requires 60 Senators.
That’s the nuclear option.
And once it’s used — once the decision of the chair has been overturned for that particular issue — it becomes precedent.
That’s the nuclear option.
And once it’s used — once the decision of the chair has been overturned for that particular issue — it becomes precedent.
That means, from 2013 forward, it only takes 51 votes to approve lower court nominees and cabinet appointments.
In 2017, McConnell, who had replaced Harry Reid as the Majority Leader after Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, employed the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees.
In 2017, McConnell, who had replaced Harry Reid as the Majority Leader after Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, employed the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees.
Technically, the filibuster is still intact for appointments — neither side has been able to marshal the 67 (“two-thirds”) votes that would be needed to change a Senate rule.
But both parties have established permanent workarounds, nuking the rule requiring 60 votes to end debate, with a 51-vote-overturning of the chair’s decision to stick with the rule.
At the beginning of each Senate session, members must pass an organizing resolution. After Kamala and the three new Dem Senators were sworn in last Wed, power shifted to the Dems. But without an organizing resolution to "make it so" on the ground, Reps were still in control.
McConnell was, in effect, filibustering the organizing resolution; he was requiring Democrats to come up with 60 votes to end debate on the resolution so a vote could be held to approve it. He was holding the organizing resolution hostage to an extraneous demand:
McConnell wanted Schumer to agree Democrats wouldn’t use the nuclear option for the remaining category of votes: legislation.
On Rachel Maddow Monday night, Schumer stated very strongly that he was not going to negotiate with McConnell — McConnell could either get on board the organizing resolution with no extraneous demands, or Schumer would move forward without him.
What Schumer meant, without directly saying, is that he was going to employ the nuclear option to get the organizing resolution passed. And McConnell knew that would put the Senate very close to setting a precedent for using the nuclear option on legislation...
... the very thing McConnell wanted to avoid.
Within minutes of Schumer’s emphatic performance on Rachel, McConnell caved, announcing he would agree to the organizing resolution, as is, without extraneous demands.
Within minutes of Schumer’s emphatic performance on Rachel, McConnell caved, announcing he would agree to the organizing resolution, as is, without extraneous demands.
This could only have happened if Schumer had all 50 Democrats on board. And he couldn’t bluff about that, because McConnell would have checked with the Democrats like Manchin who have said they will not get rid of the filibuster for legislation.
Which means, while Manchin and a couple of others are not likely to go wholesale nuclear on the category of legislation, we may be able to count on them to stand with us and blow up the 60-votes-to-end-debate rule on select individual pieces of legislation...
... if they can be assured it won’t set precedent for all legislation.
Perhaps Manchin didn't consider the organizing resolution to be "legislation," giving him an "out" from his campaign promise not to get rid of the filibuster for legislation.
Perhaps Manchin didn't consider the organizing resolution to be "legislation," giving him an "out" from his campaign promise not to get rid of the filibuster for legislation.
Whatever Manchin's thought process, Schumer was very strong that he had all 50 Democrats on board. He said they were furious that McConnell was blocking the most basic formality that would simply make conditions in the Senate fit existing conditions.
I remember too vividly how McConnell shut down President Obama back when we had a whopping 59 senators.
But this devastating powerplay by Schumer against McConnell, is huge.
It gives me hope that we will actually be able to govern.
But this devastating powerplay by Schumer against McConnell, is huge.
It gives me hope that we will actually be able to govern.
If you enjoy this post and are able, you can support Cree Hardegree’s work through Patreon. https://www.Patreon.com/hardegree
