Is the Senate "Nuclear Option" rejected by Dems off the table for the Repubs in 2014 now?

[CoopersMom]

Perhaps fearing that the so-called Nuclear Option (the tacit policy that requires a 60-vote majority to pass/advance legislation) the Dems were mulling recently could be used in the future (the future is here, baby!) against them, they rejected pulling the trigger on that strategy. Now that the Republicans have the Senate in their control, would they be so reticent?

I think not. I look for them, led by Tea Party thug Ted Cruz, to lead the charge at the first rattle out of the box to adopt this measure as a means to not only rubber stamp Congress's bills, but to open the door for an easy impeachment of the President, which they've been jonesing for since Obama was elected/re-elected.

[yeoman6987]

1. Reid's worst mistake in my opinion

I don't even think he used it as much as he should have anyway so why bother. Why should the Republicans not use it? Thankfully they are not that bright and will most likely go back to the original rules. Reid!!!!!!!!

[sharp_stick]

4. Reid's filibuster change

was limited to non-supreme court judicial appointments for a reason. It allowed Obama to nominate judges and get them appointed. Up until the change the pukes blocked EVERY judicial appointment, no matter who was up. This was the only way to get judges on the bench and it worked.

[dsc]

5. actually it was all appointments

except SCOTUS not just judicial.

[sharp_stick]

14. You're correct n/t

[yeoman6987]

9. And it might get us some middle of the road judges to

Or no judges at all. The Republicans can also change the rules to make legislation 50 votes if they want to. I don't think they will unless the President does the EO.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. And that's where the president will wield his almighty veto pen. eom

[yeoman6987]

13. As long as the Democratic Party stays united

We shall see. Regardless a long two years ahead.

[sharp_stick]

15. It did get us some judges

Quite a few actually and the effects will be felt for decades.

Consider the way Obama has already reshaped the federal judiciary: When he came into office, only one of the 13 powerful US Courts of Appeals were filled with a Democratic-appointed majority of judges. Now, nine of the 13 courts have Democratic-appointed majorities. According to The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin, he has nominated far more women and minorities than any of his predecessors.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/election-2014-obama-court-appointments-2014-11#ixzz3IbCcc6B2

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Oh, so you believe that had Reid not done the Constitutional Option, Republicans wouldn't go there

when they got control? Really?

Your argument parrots the one the Republicans were screaming about when Reid finally wielded the Constitutional Option and stopped the do-nothing GOP Senators from blocking everything President Obama. The only regret I have is that he had failed to do it sooner, as in, the moment Democrats had majorities in BOTH chambers of Congress.

[yeoman6987]

10. Well now they have the control

Wonderful! Hope it was worth it.

[BlueCaliDem]

11. Yep. And now it's their turn. But I don't regret, not for a single second, that Reid had

used the constitutional option in order to get President Obama's judges and appointees through an unprecedented obstructionist Senate. Can you imagine where President Obama's appointees would be had Reid not use the c.o. now that the GOP has taken over the Senate and can use the same c.o. themselves?

Fact remains, although the Senate is now under GOP control, they won't be able to do much. Why? They don't have the WH and they don't have 2/3rd majorities in order to override any presidential vetoes - and President Obama will dust off that veto pen and use it if they try and overreach.

So the only thing we will now see are idiotic bills for political gain (red meat bills) passing the House and the Senate. They can't even do a successful impeachment proceeding against the president because, again, they still need 2/3rd of the Senate to remove him from office, and impeaching him in the House will only infuriate the electorate come 2016 when Democrats are favored to win the WH, win back the Senate, and maybe even the House.

I'm certain Hillary Clinton is hoping and praying that the House try to impeach President Obama because that would be a certain win for her in 2016.

[razorman]

16. I sort saw this coming,when Reid instituted the "nuclear option" last year.

Of course, I was hoping that the Senate would not change hands this soon. But I knew that, eventually, the R's would regain control of the Senate and/or the House. These things always run in cycles. While using the nuke option gave us a short-term gain, I am afraid that it is about to come back and bite us in the ass. At this point, the Republicans would be fools to go back to the old rules.

[EEO]

2. They would need 2/3 of the votes in the Senate to convict Obama and kick him out.

[sharp_stick]

3. Impeachment would require a supermajority

the filibuster has nothing to do with that.

The Republicans also know that the election math in 2 years swings pretty much 180 degrees to favor the Democrats. I'd be surprised if they change the filibuster rules knowing that.

On edit: Welcome to DU

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Thank you for explaining, sharp_stick.

[CoopersMom]

8. Impeachment

Thanks, but I'm not new. But it's been awhile since I checked back in.

Their intent has been to set up a permanent blockade around everything Obama and the Dems have tried for the past six years. With Cruz leading the charge, why would anyone now reasonably believe that they'd change their strategy now? McConnell (who I believe will be challenged as the Senate leader now), along with the rabid dog, Ted Cruz, have promised to block any effort led by Obama and the Dems on any legislation. If they're for it, these asshats are against it. They've threatened to impeach Obama from the jump.

I read the comment from a Holocaust survivor, a historian as it turned out, about Hitler's stated agenda, which I won't belabor here. But this man said that when people plainly tell you what they're going to do, the surest bet for the listener is to believe what they say, because the damn well mean it. Their stated agenda are not idle threats. They mean to do exactly what they've plainly, nakedly told you they're going to do. The current republicans do exactly what they say they're going to do if they're given the chance. And fuck me, but a vast majority of voters Just gave them a green light to do it.

[FBaggins]

17. Probably for a couple years at least

It doesn't do them any good to overcome a 60-vote threshold only to bump into the 67-vote line for a veto override.

Also... it makes litle sense for Senate Democrats to spend political capital with a fillibuster just to protect a President (who doesn't need to run again) from any potenial veto damage.