Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right now the nuclear option was limited, not a full on nuclear option.
I expect the Republicans, having seen the power the minority can hold, will immediately expand the nuclear option, and try and pass as much of their policies that they can.
The “nuclear option” was denounced by all good Democrats and their mouthpiece, the NYT editorial board, when Republicans threatened to use their majority to impose it. Now it’s been a swell idea while they have been in power. The Democrats will scream in protest after they lose the Senate come November.
They will still be in power for a brief time between the election and the seating of the new Congress.
Will they repeal it during that time, before Republicans can use it as they have?
Greywar, do you understand that the Democrats blocked many more judicial nominations than the current Republicans? The issue wasn't the Senate rules, which a majority can change at any time, but hypocrisy.
They will still be in power for a brief time between the election and the seating of the new Congress.
Will they repeal it during that time, before Republicans can use it as they have?
Little-Acorn, the American people strongly oppose the nuclear option, according to all polls, because they see it for what it is: rewriting the rules to trample the minority. Republicans would be wrong to use it even if available.
They will still be in power for a brief time between the election and the seating of the new Congress.
Will they repeal it during that time, before Republicans can use it as they have?
They can't. The filibuster changes were very narrow in focus (as shown by the continued filibusters). It only applied to Presidential and Judicial appointments. So there is nothing for the Democrats to repeal during the lame duck session.
“What (Americans) don’t expect is for one Party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game, so that they can make all the decision while the other Party is told to sit down and keep quiet.”
Little-Acorn, the American people strongly oppose the nuclear option, according to all polls, because they see it for what it is: rewriting the rules to trample the minority. Republicans would be wrong to use it even if available.
What has that got to do with Democrats changing the Senate rules after the election but before the new Congress is seated?
They can't. The filibuster changes were very narrow in focus (as shown by the continued filibusters). It only applied to Presidential and Judicial appointments. So there is nothing for the Democrats to repeal during the lame duck session.
What has that got to do with Democrats changing the Senate rules after the election but before the new Congress is seated?
Will Senate Democrats repeal the measure they passed, that forbids filibusters of judicial nominees etc., when it becomes clear in early November that THEY will be the ones in the minority, and needing filibusters, for the next XX years?
As some others have mentioned - why would they while they still have the White House?
You seem to not understand what the "nuclear option" is. It seems to me that the "nuclear option" provides no benefit to the party not in control of the White House - so unless the GOP gains the White House (which demographically would be tough for the GOP even in 2016) the Democrats have no reason to repeal it.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.