Lower the filibuster to 55 votes ...

[TheCoxwain]

I see no harm in it .... we have been waiting for this for the past 100 years .. nothing is more important


If the bastard pukes wanted to do it for a Fucking Judge .. then I see no reason for us to play by the rules for this issue



.

[Alhena]

1. Would take 67 votes to do so

[TheCoxwain]

3. I remember a term called Nuclear Option ..

Pukes has 51 senate seats ... and they wanted to do it .. I am sure we can too.

[Alhena]

6. No, they were going to seek a constitutional ruling that the fillibuster did not apply to

judicial nominations. They argued that such a ruling only required 50 votes to pass, though they never actually tried it. No one doubts that the fillibuster applies to this legislation, barring the use of the budget reconciliation process.

[gratuitous]

2. Or invoke the so-called nuclear option

The Republicans, when they had a bare majority, threatened the Senate with the "nuclear" option to do away with the filibuster altogether. Maybe it's time we started yammering on about the will of the people and those sacrosanct up-or-down votes. That sure seemed to play well a few years ago. I wonder why it's now out of fashion to talk that way?

[Taverner]

4. Silly Rabbits, the Democrats have no balls

Or they would

[krispos42]

5. It wasn't the whole filibuster...

...it was the ability to filibuster Senate confirmations. If they had done "the nuclear option" then Dems would still be able to filibuster legislation but not, say, Supreme Court nominees.

I'm pretty sure that is how it went.

[LynneSin]

7. You see no harm to it - ARE YOU FRICKING NUTS???!!!

Republicans had 55 senators during the Bush administration. Can you imagine what our courts would look like if Bush didn't have to worry about some of this worse picks had a free pass to get on a judicial bench.

Leave it at 60. Because politicals is like the tide - it goes high and low on a regular basis. And the last thing we want is it going low when we're stuck with an idiot in the White House.

[Tesha]

9. Yeah: a Republican-appointed, conservative majority would sit on the Court.

Oh wait, one does!

Eliminate the un-d/Democratic fillibuster!

Tesha

[elocs]

8. Then come the day that Dems are in the minority again they would want 60 again.

You can't keep flip-flopping the rules just because it is convenient.

[Tesha]

10. What on Earth would they do with a fillibuster then?

They never managed to stop any of Bush's legislation with it
in the past!

Tesha

[elocs]

13. Trouble is that Democrats actually have Liberal, conservative, and moderate wings

and are lousy about party discipline (the old "herding cats"). Republicans tend to be more monolithic and have much better party discipline.

[harun]

14. You assume it will always swing back and forth like a pendulum.

I don't think that is a valid assumption.

[progthinker]

11. No

Lower it to 10 votes

[harun]

12. How about we just get rid of the Senate? Seems to take care of all sorts of problems

if we would do that.