If the worst happens and we have a GOP Senate

[Laura PourMeADrink]

We would know that in November, the start of lame duck, right?

So, why not switch the rules back to 60 then ?

Let them change it back to 51 like we did and everyone could throw their words today back in their face?

Hey, it would add a bit of fun in what would be a very dismal time.

[el_bryanto]

1. it would make us look like craven opportunists nt

[BlueToTheBone]

2. At this point

who cares? Maybe that's too cynical.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. Good point. That is one benefit of have a congressional approval rating

a notch above zero - you can do what the hell you want.

[BlueToTheBone]

16. And we are in the 11th hour of the planet

or has the clock struck 12?

[JaneyVee]

4. Yes, craven opportunists for a functional govt. Heresy!

[el_bryanto]

6. Ummm - you may not have read the OP

That's the one where we say that shutting off the Filibuster (which is a good idea) for these nominations is fine for us, but when our political oponents get back into power we turn it back on.

Bryant

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. not really. Of course we know it benefits anyone in power....what I am saying is just switch it

back at the last minute JUST to watch them eat their words when they pull the same thing and switch it
back to 51...."Power Grab", etc.

[el_bryanto]

13. Exactly - and that's craven opportunism.

Either we think getting rid of the filibuster for judicial positions/other nominations is a good idea or we don't. We can't think it's a good idea when we have power and a bad idea when they have power or it becomes craven opportunism.

Bryant

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. sorry...still missing my drift - only do it to point out their hypocrisy. everyone at this point

knows full well how to switch it. It wouldn't make sense for us to switch it back to 60 - knowing full well
they could switch it back to 51

[Berlum]

5. And it would expose them as craven hypocrites.

I'd rather be an opportunist than a stinkin phony hypocrite.

[MineralMan]

7. How about we all work together to make sure that doesn't happen?

That's my plan.

[HappyMe]

8. What a crazy idea!

It just may work!

[geek tragedy]

9. If they legitimately elect a Senate and a President, that's democracy and they

should be able to pass legislation and appoint nominees.

[NYC Liberal]

12. Conviction still requires 67 votes

They will never get that.

[Laelth]

14. You're right, of course.

I'm deleting my post. Don't want to mis-inform or cause unnecessary panic. My bad.

-Laelth

[FarCenter]

17. Only a third of the Senators stand for election, most incumbents win

So the "lame duck" Senate and the next Senate would consist of essentially the same members, except for a small number of seats retired or lost.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. That's not really relevant to the OP

Now is it?

[FarCenter]

19. The continuity in the Senate makes the OP's scenario improbable

Besides, the Senators tend to be independent, and getting enough Ds to do it is improbable.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. GOP shutting down government for 2 weeks was improbable

In that it has been a rare event. Yet it happened. Changing senate filibuster rules was improbable. Yet it happened.

There's no telling what either side will do in this climate.