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.
When Bush was having trouble getting his judicial nominations voted on there was strong consideration given to invoking the nuclear option to get rid of the 60 vote requirement to end cloture and allow an up or down vote. I've not heard one mention of this in regards to the health care bill. Is health care considered less important than a judicial appointment? Why didn't Obama push this as a way to get a more left wing bill through the Senate?
When Bush was having trouble getting his judicial nominations voted on there was strong consideration given to invoking the nuclear option to get rid of the 60 vote requirement to end cloture and allow an up or down vote. I've not heard one mention of this in regards to the health care bill. Is health care considered less important than a judicial appointment? Why didn't Obama push this as a way to get a more left wing bill through the Senate?
You may not have heard of the "nuclear option" being applied to the health care reform bill because the nuclear option does not exist. It was something suggested and discussed by Senate Republicans when they were in the majority, but never used.
This may be of some help:
Budget Reconciliation
The legislative process known as Budget Reconciliation goes back to 1974. It is an optional process that Congress sometimes uses with legislation that includes policy changes with regard to the federal budget; specifically, funding of mandatory programs and/or revenue programs (anything dealing with taxes).
Now, I don't know this for a fact, but it's quite possible that the health care reform bill - since both House and Senate versions contain provisions which make it a mandatory program - would be eligible for Budget Reconciliation. However, it's my understanding that Budget Reconciliation could not be applied to the health care reform legislation currently before Congress - they would have to start all over again.
Many bills dealing with federal budget items are voted on without the use of the Budget Reconciliation process, but it has been used from time to time. From 1980 to 1998, Budget Reconciliation was used 13 times. More recently, this process was used four times during the Bush administration, including both the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
According to the Wikipedia entry for Budget Reconciliation, "Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit."
It is important to note that Budget Reconciliation is an established legislative process that Democrats and Republicans both have used in the past, and will no doubt use again in the future. A very good description can be found here:
THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm - broken link)
Nuclear Option
This phrase describes something that does not exist. The phrase is generally attributed to Republican Senator Trent Lott, and it refers to an effort by Republicans to change Senate rules regarding judicial nominations.
In a nutshell, it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate (60 votes) to break a filibuster. In 2004/2005, although the 55 Democrats in the Senate had agreed to over 200 Bush judicial nominations, they used the filibuster process to block 10 appointments to the bench, and that caused Republicans to seek a way to change the rules.
There are very good articles giving the background of this available here:
When Bush was having trouble getting his judicial nominations voted on there was strong consideration given to invoking the nuclear option to get rid of the 60 vote requirement to end cloture and allow an up or down vote. I've not heard one mention of this in regards to the health care bill. Is health care considered less important than a judicial appointment? Why didn't Obama push this as a way to get a more left wing bill through the Senate?
This phrase describes something that does not exist. The phrase is generally attributed to Republican Senator Trent Lott, and it refers to an effort by Republicans to change Senate rules regarding judicial nominations.
In a nutshell, it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate (60 votes) to break a filibuster. In 2004/2005, although the 55 Democrats in the Senate had agreed to over 200 Bush judicial nominations, they used the filibuster process to block 10 appointments to the bench, and that caused Republicans to seek a way to change the rules.
There are very good articles giving the background of this available here:
The Nuclear Option was never approved, and therefore has never been used. The so-called Gang of 14 worked out a compromise.
So, with any current legislation, it's Budget Reconciliation, and not Nuclear Option.
Well of course it wouldn't exist until the rule were to change. However, I believe it would only take a majority vote to change it. I would like to see this change as I consider the current rule anti-democratic. Keep in mind what happened recently with the House of Lords when it was perceived they were obstructing the will of the people.
Well of course it wouldn't exist until the rule were to change. However, I believe it would only take a majority vote to change it. I would like to see this change as I consider the current rule anti-democratic. Keep in mind what happened recently with the House of Lords when it was perceived they were obstructing the will of the people.
According to Senate rules, it would take a 2/3 majority vote (67 Senators) to change a Senate rule.
Generally speaking, neither party is especially eager to see this rule changed. The minority party likes to have the power to stop legislation, and both parties know that majorities come and go, and they will be in the minority from time to time.
According to Senate rules, it would take a 2/3 majority vote (67 Senators) to change a Senate rule.
That was declared unconstitutional in the 1892 U.S. v. Ballin decision, which stated only a simple majority is required to amend rules in either house. I'm sure the Republicans realized that when they proposed using it for judicial nominees. I think the real answer is Democrats are too afraid to rock the boat and find the rule an easy excuse not to have to cross their lobbyist benefactors.
When Bush was having trouble getting his judicial nominations voted on there was strong consideration given to invoking the nuclear option to get rid of the 60 vote requirement to end cloture and allow an up or down vote. I've not heard one mention of this in regards to the health care bill. Is health care considered less important than a judicial appointment? Why didn't Obama push this as a way to get a more left wing bill through the Senate?
They indeed waived the 60 vote needed to get it through todays Senate to move to Committee...
They managed to get the 60 needed so it wasnt needed, but they only needed 51 today to get it through.
That was declared unconstitutional in the 1892 U.S. v. Ballin decision, which stated only a simple majority is required to amend rules in either house. I'm sure the Republicans realized that when they proposed using it for judicial nominees. I think the real answer is Democrats are too afraid to rock the boat and find the rule an easy excuse not to have to cross their lobbyist benefactors.
You might want to check that court decision again, as it seems to apply to the House, not the Senate.
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.
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.
