General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes reforming the filibuster remove a Senator's right to put a hold on any nomination.
Granted, from the Senates own site at Senate.Gov, they admit there is no actual rule in place.
The practice of "holds" (requests by senators to party leaders to delay floor consideration of legislation or nominations), which is nowhere recognized in Senate rules or precedents and about which little is known with respect to its origins, has become a prominent feature of today's Senate
But it has been used often to stop a nomination. Will Republicans go nuclear with this procedural tool to stop the government from governing? Stay tuned for next week, next month, next year.
Harry, you have the power, make the filibuster go away.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)We will see if this does any good in the short term.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Keefer
(713 posts)the pukes regain the majority in the senate in 2014, Reid can still undo this before the new senate is sworn in. No worries!
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Bill Frist threatened the Nuclear Option back in 2005, because Democrats were stopping some of Bush's appointments. Democrats at that time opposed the use of the Nuclear option. It takes some of he power away form the minority party in the Senate.
I think Harry should use it, but I also recognize there will be no going back. It will change the balance of power a bit in the US Senate when it comes to Presidential appointments.
My question was about Holds. A hold is not a filibuster. The Senate allows it and I don't see why they could not easily migrate form the filibuster to a hold on people they don't want.