Help

[Vietnameravet]

Can someone take a moment to clarify something for me...I am a bit confused on the recent actions of the Senate Democrats on the filibuster. Does it mean Repubs cannot filibuster or only that a majority can end the filibuster?
Why does this not apply to other areas, like proposed laws? Or does it?? and could it? ..and what does this mean for the rules of Senate in 2014?

Anything else I am missing?

Just not clear on the precise details of this and wanted some clarification,.and what better place to ask then here..



Thanks

[elleng]

1. 'ending the minority’s ability to kill most presidential nominations by filibuster.

The Senate voted, 52-48, to effectively change the rules by rejecting the opinion of the presiding officer that a supermajority is required to limit debate, or invoke cloture, on executive branch nominees and those for seats on federal courts short of the Supreme Court.

Three Democrats — Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — voted to keep the rules unchanged.

The move came after Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised a point of order that only a majority of senators were required to break filibusters of such nominees. Presiding over the Senate as president pro tem, Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont issued a ruling in line with past precedent, saying that 60 votes were required. Leahy personally supported making the change.

Voting against Leahy’s ruling has the effect of changing the rules to require only a simple majority for most nominations.


The new precedent represents what’s likely to prove the most significant change in Senate rules since 1975, when the cloture threshold was reduced to 60 votes in most cases (from two-thirds of senators present and voting). . .

The new reality will allow Democrats to advance nominees without Republican votes, but not without expending time and effort. The new rule was on display when the Senate voted, 55-43, to limit debate on the motion of Patricia Ann Millett to a seat on the D.C. appeals court. Until earlier in the day, that action would have required 60 votes.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/democrats-go-nuclear-eliminate-filibusters-on-most-nominees/

[Cha]

2. Thank you,

elleng!

[elleng]

3. You're welcome, Cha.

Hope this answers poster's questions. Not entirely sure it does.

[Vietnameravet]

4. Oh thanks that is the clearest explination yet.. Im good, for now..Thanks! But

what the hell were those three democrats thinking???

I have seen Carl Levin and he seems like a brilliant man who just doesnt seem to understand,,sometime you gotta fight...

[okaawhatever]

5. Two are up for reelection in tight races. Levin is different, here are his statements from last

year. You may remember that he and McCain had a bipartisan plan for filibuster reform which was the basis for the changes last year.

"It's up to us to force people to filibuster," Levin said. "We have the power under the current rules. The problem is that we have not forced the people who threaten to filibuster to filibuster. ... We need to do that under the current rules. It will succeed."

When Democrats brought up their sequestration plan last month, they forced Republicans to mount a public filibuster. So Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a live objection to a straight up-or-down vote and Republicans withheld their support for letting the legislation move forward. It failed despite having majority support

"We must show the same will, the same willpower, the same determination to defeat the filibuster," he told TPM, as Republicans show in using it."

I guess Levin wants everyone to go on record publicly filibustering each nominee because I guess he thinks folks will back down. Merkley offered changes in the past that included requiring talking filibusters but Levin didn't support that either. Levin announced his retirement so he doesn't have a political future to consider here.

I know groups like Planned Parenthood oppose filibuster reform because there might be 51 votes to change reproductive rights laws. This change affects only Presidential nominations, with the exception of SCOTUS nominees. PP probably only opposes going nuclear on bills.

I think others answered, but yes, they could use a simple majority to change filibuster on bills and SCOTUS nominees in the future.
From what I understand, when the Dems were filibustering Bush's nominees, a gentlemans agreement was reached stating they wouldn't officially change the filibuster if the other party wouldn't filibuster nominees unless there was (I think the wording was) serious personal objections. In fact, when the last three nominees were filibustered one of the Senators used those exact words on tv. Clearly, the Republicans were abusing this option and so the debate was whether the gentlemans agreement wasn't being honored by the Republicans. My concern is that Americans aren't familiar enough with what's going on that if the Republicans take control they'll change the rules regarding scotus and legislative bills claiming it is the same thing the Dems did and folks won't know the difference.