Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAsking DU's Senate procedural experts: No debate allowed on rules changes???
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 5127 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Asking DU's Senate procedural experts: No debate allowed on rules changes??? (Original Post)
rgbecker
Apr 2017
OP
In this specific case no debate allowed. Here's the explanation of why not...
PoliticAverse
Apr 2017
#1
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)1. In this specific case no debate allowed. Here's the explanation of why not...
from the Wikipedia page on the Nuclear Option...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option affects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
rgbecker
(4,834 posts)2. Thanks for the info and link.
The talk is that this now holds for all nominees in the future. But couldn't a future Senate invoke/re-establish the filibuster requirement when they first meet again for a new session? I understand the majority may not ever want to, but could they?
mythology
(9,527 posts)3. Yes. The Senate can reinstate the rules or a variation
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)4. "What one Senate does, another can undo". n/t