Will nuclear option on filibuster change anything?

posted at 12:01 pm on November 22, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

There are lots of reasons why the move by Harry Reid yesterday was bad, of course, Carl Levin’s opposition focused on the worst of the abuse, which was not the change to the filibuster itself but the violation of the supermajority requirement for mid-session rule changes.  That set a precedent for future Senate majorities to pretty much run roughshod over future Senate minorities, no matter which party is represented by which. That guarantees that the Senate will end up with the same level of bipartisan cooperation as the House, which is to say none at all, if the minority has no stake in cooperating — and clearly, Reid has removed any incentive at all for cooperation, at least in this session.

However, does anyone outside of the Beltway and political junkies really care about it? Will this drive elections?  Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan are skeptical:

And yet, for the world outside of Washington, invoking the nuclear option and the changing of filibuster rules are non-happenings — moments that barely register and almost certainly will have zero impact on who they vote for in the coming midterm elections.

Polling, which is somewhat scarce on the subject, tells the story of just how little people know about the filibuster. Check out this chart from Pew:

Image courtesy of Pew

Image courtesy of Pew

So, roughly one in four people knew that 60 votes were needed to break a filibuster. The largest group — almost four in 10 — didn’t know enough to even offer a guess-timate on how many votes were needed to break a filibuster. Good times.

Now, there is a difference between not knowing about the specific mechanics of the filibuster and valuing the concept of it as protection for minority rights in Congress. Still, though, most Americans care about the impact of legislation, not the niceties of the debate that produces it.  And this means that Republicans have to be careful about how they react to the change.  They can make Reid pay by miring the Senate through the refusal of unanimous consent, which would force Reid to negotiate from a weaker hand than under the previous filibuster rules, but that will only work to the extent that it blocks unpopular legislation.  It also carries the risk of making that fight the big story, rather than the ObamaCare meltdown, which is something that voters actually do care about.

On the other hand, it’s not going to do much for Democrats, either.  The ploy was a transparent attempt to change the subject and pander to their activist base, as Chuck Todd noted yesterday:

“Right now, don’t forget, the base of the Democratic Party – particularly the activist base – not in a good place, not feeling good about health care,” Todd told MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell.

“This has been something that many in the activist base of the Democratic Party have been wanting Harry Reid to do for a while,” he continued. “So, I think this is also about a moment of reassurance to the Democratic base who is feeling a little bit, you know, under attack and under siege a little bit because of how poorly the health care rollout is going.”

So, now Reid pulled the trigger … and the drama will have gone out of presidential appointments for the rest of this session.  That still leaves a year of disaster ahead on ObamaCare, and removes at least one potential distraction for Democrats, who have cried about Republican obstruction ever since the ObamaCare fight itself. Even in practical terms, the nuclear option won’t change anything, because Reid had successfully used it to push the GOP into retreat on filibusters on appointments more than once. All this does is remove the pretense.

In other words, for both Democrats and Republicans, the filibuster fight itself is likely to have almost no impact past the Thanksgiving holidays with most Americans, and might not even have had much impact at all. That’s bad news for Democrats, and very good news for Republicans if they can win both the White House and Senate in 2016.  Harry Reid just gave them carte blanche if that happens, and no one outside the Beltway seems to mind.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just keep track of who’s NOT talking about it this time around and ignore them when the tables are turned.

CitizenEgg on November 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I think this is very telling coming from a dem. A good read.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on November 22, 2013 at 12:10 PM

sorry link didn’t work. google pat caddell fox news opinion.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on November 22, 2013 at 12:12 PM

The only thing this really does is pack the DC court so that the judges there won’t rule any of Obama’s illegal actions as illegal. As if the GOP has even really tried to push it (outside of the “recess” appointments when there was no recess).

Bitter Clinger on November 22, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Just keep track of who’s NOT talking about it this time around and ignore them when the tables are turned.

CitizenEgg on November 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM

You mean all of the faux journalists at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS etc.?

oldroy on November 22, 2013 at 12:13 PM

First draft of Kennedy’s inaugural speech read slightly different than the one given.

So ask not what your country is going to do for you. As what you can do for your country. Ask of your leaders the same high standards and sacrifice that we will ask of you.

Were Kennedy writing that speech today, I wonder if he would even bother asking that Americans ask anything beyond “what are you going to give me?” And as to leaders being held to any standards or make any sacrifice….. well that is just crazy talk.

Happy Nomad on November 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM

This obvious is based on the premonition that the GOPe cares to do anything right once they get into power. Their track record, outside of the Newt-led 104th Congress, is rather crappy at best.

Maybe that will change if Bohenor and McConnell are forced out, and nitwits like King Peter and McCant are forced to sit down and comply.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Mitch McHeadupbutt already said he’ll restore
regular order once the stupid party gets elected
to the majority .
Vote the old boy network out !

Lucano on November 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Harkin wants some more.

KCB on November 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Just use the senate rules to have every bill read prior to voting, out loud.

The_Livewire on November 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

arry Reid just gave them carte blanche if that happens, and no one outside the Beltway seems to mind.

And no one really thinks the GOP will exercise that in a meaningful way, do they?

Ideally, they shouldn’t – they should ‘behave’ – but frankly, I don’t want that anymore – I *want* them to rule mercilessly, and destroy the Democrats – utterly.

But they won’t. They don’t have the spine to actually do it; it might make the media say bad things about them, boohoo.

Midas on November 22, 2013 at 12:18 PM

But they do care about a lying president and their health care options, and this is where the Republicans must exert intense pressure to keep the visibility high.

rplat on November 22, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Until the progressive left and the lamestream media bay at the moon in unison when the GOP gets the majority. Then, believe me, the world will know about it.

Viator on November 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Patterico has a GREAT post on this. Please do yourself a favor and read.

Chris of Rights on November 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

The courts will now be packed with rabid leftists which will essentially give the Dems huge power. Reid has just begun the process of turning America into a fascist country.

neyney on November 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Just use the senate rules to have every bill read prior to voting, out loud.

The_Livewire on November 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

This is a policy which should never have been abandoned.

Chris of Rights on November 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

That’s bad news for Democrats, and very good news for Republicans if they can win both the White House and Senate in 2016. Harry Reid just gave them carte blanche if that happens, and no one outside the Beltway seems to mind.

I think that everyone (dems and msm) will be crying how the Republicans are stomping on the rights of the mimority AND no-one, not even the republicans will say anything in defense nor will they remind the dems and msm that this was harry reid’s doing.

Sarge

AFSarge on November 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I have no faith that this is even a country with checks and balances anymore.

We elect a President every four years now. There is no check on executive power. None.

So now what?

Beats me.

It’s pretty clear that the left wing media is back on the job this morning however… they are defending Obamacare like crazy again.

And Obama’s approval ticked up a couple of tenths so I guess that was the floor. At least for a while.

With a corrupt media, we have no functioning Republic.

We have a kind of monarchy with a façade of the old government.

Actually, its sort of like the old monarchy in Russia just before the end. They had a what-you-call-it counsel to give the Tsar cover… but of course it didn’t do that well and the Bolshevik/Mensheviks stepped in.

I am not liking the way the media seems back in line this morning.

petunia on November 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM

And no one really thinks the GOP will exercise that in a meaningful way, do they?

Ideally, they shouldn’t – they should ‘behave’ – but frankly, I don’t want that anymore – I *want* them to rule mercilessly, and destroy the Democrats – utterly.

But they won’t. They don’t have the spine to actually do it; it might make the media say bad things about them, boohoo.

Midas on November 22, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Which is why it’s not a bad thing to forcibly purify the party and to either primary out the GOPe Socialists or to replace them with genuine Socialists. No more lesser of two evils.

Mitch McHeadupbutt already said he’ll restore
regular order once the stupid party gets elected
to the majority .
Vote the old boy network out !

Lucano on November 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

McConnell will either be primaried or replaced by a Dem. And you know what? I find it hard to care.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM

…….Obama/Hillary/Schumer/Reid/Feinstein/Biden/Dodd/Baucus

………..2005 FiliBuster Rant:)

Hypocrisy Archives – Watch how Dems incl Obama, Clinton fight hard to stop Nuclear Option talk

Published on Nov 21, 2013

VIDEO-(5:03)
************
************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJIOmANBhLY
===========================================

GaffeBiden’s rant on Filibuster,….2005:)

Biden in 2005: ‘I Pray God’ Dems Don’t Pursue ‘Naked Power Grab’ Nuclear Option in Majority
by Noah Rothman | 3:22 pm, November 21st, 2013
**********************************************

When Republicans discussed proposing a reform the filibuster with the “nuclear option” in 2005, Democrats railed against the effort. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is on record saying it would be an “abuse of power.” President Barack Obama said that “gridlock will only get worse” if the nuclear option was employed. Even Vice President Joe Biden said that he prayed that Democrats would not do, as they did today, reform the filibuster rules to prevent minority members from blocking presidential nominees.

In 2005, Biden railed against the use of the “nuclear option,” saying that the Senate Parliamentarian would insist that such a maneuver “was not parliamentarily appropriate.”
“You cannot change the Senate rules by a pure majority vote,” he insisted, as Democrats did on Thursday.

RELATED: Obama in 2005: If Republicans Kill Filibuster, ‘Gridlock Will Only Get Worse’

“Watch the vice president ignore – he’s not required to look to an unelected officer — but that has been the practice for 218 years,” Biden said of Vice President Dick Cheney. “He will make the ruling, which is a lie. A lie about the rule.”

“This is what’s really going on here, the majority doesn’t want to hear what others have to say even if it’s the truth,” Biden continued. “The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play.”

“I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever,” Biden concluded. “I pray God, when the Democrats take back control, we

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/biden-in-2005-i-pray-god-dems-dont-pursue-naked-power-grab-nuclear-option-in-majority/

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 2:13 AM

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM

RINO’S got no need to the commie Democrats now on these votes.

So the price of a RINO just took a big hit.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM

need ot sell out to the commie Democrats now..

oops

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM

And thus we continue to demonize the only people who stand between us and the Communists.

You are on their team fighting for Communism. I have no idea why you simply cannot see it. So I know that of coruse you see it. That is the plan you will defeat this country pretending to be a conservative. And get a bunch of idiots to go along… to “purify” which simply means take out the opposition to the Communists.

You can not force Republicans to think the way you want them too, so you destroy the only institution capable of fighting for us.

You are a closet Commie. Admit it.

petunia on November 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM

The courts will now be packed with rabid leftists which will essentially give the Dems huge power. Reid has just begun the process of turning America into a fascist country.

neyney on November 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Woodrow Wilson actually started the process 100 years ago with his censorship acts. You’re giving Dingy Harry waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. He’s simply a political stooge.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Harry Reid to “McCAin” “don’t need ya”, bye bye,,,

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:27 PM

And no one really thinks the GOP will exercise that in a meaningful way, do they?

Ideally, they shouldn’t – they should ‘behave’

Midas on November 22, 2013 at 12:18 PM

What does this mean? Behave how? The filibuster was a tool that as a practical effect required 60 votes to pass a law or confirm an appointee.

All this does is remove the filibuster (ostensibly only as to confirmations) so as not to require 60 votes any longer. This does not effect any of a Senate majority’s Constitutional duties or powers. So I’m not sure how the GOP should “behave”? Not pass things with a majority when they obtain the majority? Not confirm nominees with a majority once they have the majority?

Monkeytoe on November 22, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Reuters Politics ‏@ReutersPolitics 1h

Democrats ditch historic U.S. Senate rule blamed for gridlock http://reut.rs/1aCWlhx

https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics
===================================

WASHINGTON Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:34am EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/22/us-usa-senate-nominees-idUSBRE9AK0V920131122?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=574655

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Harkin wants some more.

KCB on November 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Fat Eddie Schultz was ranting today about how they should change it so they can force all their crap through, including single payer and climate change garbage.

PetecminMd on November 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Mitch McConnell just called Ted Cruz a bully along with Mike Lee.

To bad he is such a useless old fool.

In fact the commie Democrats could have done this deal just doing a back room deal with old Mitch the bitc”, but they have now even cut him out of the “pork” deals.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Could someone please tell me real numbers for how “extreme” the republicans were with the filibuster? I can’t find any numbers. I guess I’m searching the wrong words. Figured someone here would know…

americanmama on November 22, 2013 at 12:32 PM

And thus we continue to demonize the only people who stand between us and the Communists.

You are on their team fighting for Communism. I have no idea why you simply cannot see it. So I know that of coruse you see it. That is the plan you will defeat this country pretending to be a conservative. And get a bunch of idiots to go along… to “purify” which simply means take out the opposition to the Communists.

You can not force Republicans to think the way you want them too, so you destroy the only institution capable of fighting for us.

You are a closet Commie. Admit it.

petunia on November 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I have no clue what in the samhill you’re talking about.

If being fed up of closest Socialists in the GOPe – who seek to denigrate the principles of conservatism and limited government and show disregard to the law with de facto amnesty – amounts to being a Communist, then 95% of the non-troll posters on HotGas are rabid Commies.

The notion of a “big tent” GOPe has done nothing to advance the cause of conservatism and done everything to casually enable the cause of Socialism.

Get a clue.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Rush Limbaugh Show Streaming Online:
************************************

AM 770 “The Truth”
Now Playing:
The Rush Limbaugh Show
**********************

http://tunein.com/

http://tunein.com/radio/AM-770-The-Truth-s34404/

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM

The Republican House now has the fate of the U.S. in its hands.

They must attack , not lay low.

Do not pass one dam funding bill until the rule is changed back.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Just use the senate rules to have every bill read prior to voting, out loud.

The_Livewire on November 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

As if that rule, itself, cannot be changed, right?

HiJack on November 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM

It will expose the Rs to be even dumber than already assumed to be.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM

since we now effectively have another house of rep by way of simple majority rule, does this make the new senate the lower house? dock their pay and terms accordingly.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on November 22, 2013 at 12:37 PM

I don’t care about the rule change. This is what the rule should be. It should have been the rule in 2005. And I do care about that – yet another sell out by the statist GOP to leave the country in a weakened position.

besser tot als rot on November 22, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Fat Eddie Schultz was ranting today about how they should change it so they can force all their crap through, including single payer and climate change garbage.

PetecminMd on November 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM

He, along with all of the other MSNBC chowder heads, got those ideas directly from the White House.

HiJack on November 22, 2013 at 12:37 PM

It will expose the Rs to be even dumber than already assumed to be.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I don’t know that is possible. I’m already surprised that they can breathe.

besser tot als rot on November 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM

did collins and murkowski vote yes and who told them to?

gracie on November 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM

When you change the rules mid-game, you effectively tell everyone that there are no rules. This precedent will have a long term impact.

In our Constitution, the founding fathers specifically designed it to offer protections to the minority from abuses or tyranny from the majority. Now in the Senate, the minority is stripped of it’s role (at this point, but it could easily change) towards advice and consent. Now, in the future, it could be whatever 51 want it to be – and 49 have no recourse (as do the people those 49 represent). That will have a long term impact.

It SHOULD change the viewpoint of the pathetic and spineless GOP Senators who believe in ‘going along to get along’ with those across the aisle – but likely will not. They will still seek to ‘compromise’, to ‘go along to get along’, to think that those across the aisle are principled and with honor. It SHOULD increase gridlock and partisanship – and will with one side, but not the side that should see it that way.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Results for #filibuster
***********************

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23filibuster&src=hash

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Make this float. It’s a good question. Look for the last one.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

did collins and murkowski vote yes and who told them to?

gracie on November 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM

None of the Rs voted to remove the filibuster. Three Ds voted to keep it.
Finally tally: 52-48.

22044 on November 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM

The filibuster has been abused, but by Ds when Bush was President.

It’s been used properly since when Obama disrespects the Constitution and the United States.

22044 on November 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM

The fate of “pork” payoffs in the Senate is in grave trouble.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Rush points out that the change in the filibuster rule allows Obama to appoint Dem judges to DC Circuit court, making the stacked court a rubber stamp for his exec orders and agency regs. So now what he can’t get through Congress he can do by overreach of exec authority. Congress is obsolete.

petefrt on November 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM

In our Constitution, the founding fathers specifically designed it to offer protections to the minority from abuses or tyranny from the majority. Now in the Senate, the minority is stripped of it’s role (at this point, but it could easily change) towards advice and consent. Now, in the future, it could be whatever 51 want it to be – and 49 have no recourse (as do the people those 49 represent). That will have a long term impact.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM

The founders did not create the filibuster and it is not found in the constitution.

Monkeytoe on November 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

“So, I think this is also about a moment of reassurance to the Democratic base who is feeling a little bit, you know, under attack and under siege a little bit because of how poorly the health care rollout is going.”

Aww, did the pow widdle baybays have a bad day??? Awwww, give ‘em a nice widdle snack of miwk and cookies.

spit

MisterElephant on November 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Made my day. Thanks.

ElectricPhase on November 22, 2013 at 12:49 PM

did collins and murkowski vote yes and who told them to?

gracie on November 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Those votes only served as cover for the few Dems that voted against it. If all of the Donks had voted for it, then no ‘pubs would have been necessary.

HiJack on November 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

On the other hand,,,, seems like an opening for a third party in the Senate.

Say 5 independent Tea Party types.

They could hold both parts of the two party evil money cult at bay.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM

5 Tea Party guys win in commie states.

They would hold the balance over the D’s and R’s in the Senate?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/22/Exclusive-McConnell-Tea-Party-a-bunch-of-bullies-who-me-and-Karl-Rove-are-going-to-punch-in-the-nose

Oh sure we can live with these guys . / s

Lucano on November 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Yeah, because Karl Rove had such a tremendous return on investment last November. :P

If I’m Matt Bevin, I would be ecstatic beyond belief at this news. All he needs to do is to paint McConnell as an out-of-touch, past-his-prime Washington insider, and McConnell just supplied him with ample bulletin board material.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Democrat party = party of tyranny, lies and coercion

Pest on November 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM

However, does anyone outside of the Beltway and political junkies really care about it? Will this drive elections?

It will if the GOP puts it in terms people can understand. Something simple like “Obama is packing the courts” .

Believe me, every American voter is going to care about his/her ability to still receive justice in our court system. Republicans just need to make sure that everyone hears that phrase… “Obama is packing the courts”.

Murf76 on November 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM

If all these commie thug Democrats will hand out is lemons, make lemonade and sell it to them at cartel prices.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Say 8 to 10 conservative R’s.

The new ones from the correct states.

It takes money to win and stay in, once we get to 8 or 10 and the others stay the same, $ would flow to these 8 or 10 who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

like that

Use their money against them.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM

did collins and murkowski vote yes and who told them to?

gracie on November 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM

gracie:)
==============

*** ROLL CALL ******:)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 1st Session
********************************************************

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
============

Question: On the Decision of the Chair (Shall the Decision of the Chair Stand as the Judgment of the Senate? (Reid Appeal) )

Vote Number: 242 Vote Date: November 21, 2013, 12:10 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Decision of Chair Not Sustained
Nomination Number: PN527
========================

Nomination Description: Patricia Ann Millett, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit

Vote Counts: YEAs 48
NAYs 52

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
***********************************************************

Alphabetical by Senator Name
*****************************
*****************************

Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00242

canopfor on November 21, 2013 at 1:10 PM

canopfor on November 21, 2013 at 1:30 PM

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM

However, does anyone outside of the Beltway and political junkies really care about it? Will this drive elections?

It will if the GOP puts it in terms people can understand. Something simple like “Obama is packing the courts” .

Believe me, every American voter is going to care about his/her ability to still receive justice in our court system. Republicans just need to make sure that everyone hears that phrase… “Obama is packing the courts”.

Murf76 on November 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM

McConnell, McCant, King Peter, Grahamnesty and all the low-info Socialists who dominate the GOPe will work to make sure that will never ever happen.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Again, is it put up or shut up time?

I’m kinda tired of the b1tching and moaning, personally.

Is this tyranny, or isn’t it?

Elections aren’t going to fix this at this point.

Levin’s amendment process is a nice academic exercise, but isn’t going to fix this at this point.

Sorry, I just don’t see any hope other than through a passive ‘let it burn’ approach – just withdraw from it, even nudge it along – or a more pro-active resolution.

One or the other is coming.

Midas on November 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM

McConnell said the Tea Party was ‘nothing but a bunch of bullies,’” the source said. “And he said ‘you know how you deal with schoolyard bullies? You punch them in the nose and that’s what we’re going to do.’”

You’d think he’d reserve such ire for, oh I dunno, Dingy Harry, but no.

Akzed on November 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Believe me, every American voter is going to care about his/her ability to still receive justice in our court system. Republicans just need to make sure that everyone hears that phrase… “Obama is packing the courts”.

Murf76 on November 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Casting a casual glance back at 2012, I’d say a significant percentage of American voters – perhaps a majority – actually wouldn’t know WTF you’re talking about. They don’t define ‘justice’ the way you do, and “Obama is packing the courts” would likely yield a response of “awesome!”.

Midas on November 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Question: Is it now possible for Democrats to put in place a judge whom the DoJ will seek out for all matters of scandal against the administration? For example, with the DoJ file some motion to keep all remaining information regarding Benghazi or the IRS scandal secret?

In other words, is there some tangible outcome that may exist in the near future that can expressly benefit a beleaguered president as a result of Reid nuking the Senate?

BKeyser on November 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

What does this mean?

Monkeytoe on November 22, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Reading comprehension not working well for you today, I see.

Midas on November 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Monkeytoe on November 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

If I was referencing the filibuster was part of the Constitution, I would have said the filibuster was part of the Constitution and included the pertinent quote.

The reference I made is that when writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were specifically concerned about the tyrannies of the majority suppressing rights and protections for those of the minority.

The use of the filibuster, first done in the 18th century, but codified in the present form (a cloture vote) in 1917 requiring (then) only a 2/3rd vote to end debate and move forward and vote on a bill. The limit was subsequently changed to 3/5ths of the Senate, and to permit ‘virtual filibusters’.

The intent then and now was to permit debate, provide protections for the minority in the Senate (that don’t exist in the House where the majority rules all), and ensure that the Senate would be the deliberative and ‘sober’ body – moving forward based on compromise and consensus, not brute numbers (like in the passage of Obamacare) like in the House.

While not defined in the Constitution, the filibuster fits within the intents of the Founding Fathers around the purpose of the Senate as detailed by Madison in Federalist #62. That was the point.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Reading comprehension not working well for you today, I see.

Midas on November 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

LOL, I had just edited out a similar comment in my post @1:21pm.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 1:23 PM

BKeyser on November 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Good question!

I would also like to know if they can use this tactic for anything else, can Reid use the nuclear option and force this procedure for anything the dems want and the House won’t give them?

Scrumpy on November 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

A picture worth a million bucks

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Akzed on November 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I hope frogface goes to political Hell soon.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 1:34 PM

They Got Away With It

Amy Payne

November 22, 2013 at 6:30 am
****************************

As President Obama said, they got away with it.

Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate got away with changing the Senate’s rules so that they can shove through anything they want without having to worry about Republicans filibustering against it.

Just a few short years ago, then-Senator Obama spoke forcefully against doing what Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) just did. When Republicans talked about a similar rule change in 2005, Obama said (emphasis added):

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority. I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rule change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it is good for our democracy.

Yesterday, the President’s strong words in support of the filibuster were but a memory, as he declared his about-face in favor of the Democratic majority seizing power. “I support the step a majority of Senators today took to change the way that Washington is doing business,” he said, describing Reid’s power grab in lofty, for-the-people terms.

Obama’s 180-degree turn on this issue—based on who’s in the Senate majority—is perhaps most amusing when you see that he invoked the American Founders in defense of both positions.

In 2005, getting rid of the filibuster “certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.”

But today, using the filibuster is “not what our Founders envisioned.”

Now, whatever the Democratic majority in the Senate wants, it can be done. The rule change means that instead of needing 60 votes to cut off debate on a nomination, Reid needs only 51. He has 55 Democratic Senators.

As Heritage legal analyst Elizabeth Slattery noted, “Though the rule purportedly applies only to executive branch and judicial nominations—excluding Supreme Court nominations (for now, anyway)—it would seem with 51 votes, Reid can do just about anything.”

The change could be undone again with another simple majority vote. But the minority may just want to wait it out until they get their turn—Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA) has said, “Go ahead. There are a lot more [Antonin] Scalias and [Clarence] Thomases out there we’d love to put on the bench.”
==========================

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/22/harry-reid-filibuster-they-got-away-with-it/

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 1:35 PM

It also carries the risk of making that fight the big story, rather than the ObamaCare meltdown, which is something that voters actually do care about.

Apparently, Ed thinks that the propaganda of the media is the only force that matters.

Freddy on November 22, 2013 at 1:35 PM

BKeyser on November 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

From a FAQ:

Q: How are judges assigned to cases?

Judge assignment methods vary. The basic considerations in making assignments are to assure equitable distribution of caseloads and avoid judge shopping. By statute, the chief judge of each district court has the responsibility to enforce the court’s rules and orders on case assignments. Each court has a written plan or system for assigning cases. The majority of courts use some variation of a random drawing. One simple method is to rotate the names of available judges. At times judges having special expertise can be assigned cases by type, such as complex criminal cases, asbestos-related cases, or prisoner cases. The benefit of this system is that it takes advantage of the expertise developed by judges in certain areas. Sometimes cases may be assigned based on geographical considerations. For example, in a large geographical area it may be best to assign a case to a judge located at the site where the case was filed. Courts also have a system to check if there is any conflict that would make it improper for a judge to preside over a particular case.

To a large extent, it’s a numbers game. Judges are supposed to be impartial, but ideological biases have had, and will have, a role in many cases, particularly those around the constitutionality of executive branch decisions and actions. The more ‘friendly’ judges, the more likely a specific case will get a ‘friendly’ judge.

Even though the caseload in the DC District doesn’t warrant even filling the current vacancies (and one seat was eliminated in 2007 because of the low workload), it’s to Obama’s advantage to put three more very liberal judges onto the court…because it increases the odds that any legal action against his Administration will be heard by a ‘friendly’ judge.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM

A picture worth a million bucks

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Schadenfreude:Lol, Hopey is almost submerged!:)

canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Question: Is it now possible for Democrats to put in place a judge whom the DoJ will seek out for all matters of scandal against the administration? For example, with the DoJ file some motion to keep all remaining information regarding Benghazi or the IRS scandal secret?

In other words, is there some tangible outcome that may exist in the near future that can expressly benefit a beleaguered president as a result of Reid nuking the Senate?

BKeyser on November 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The emphasis is on “near future.” When you make a deal with the devil, the near future is a rollicking good time… until your luck runs out.

Whether you call it karma, or a divine hand, there is always an external force at work. And really, the central deal with the devil came when the Dems put all their hopes behind Obama… as their hate towards George W. Bush poisoned them beyond any sense of redemption. Their luck is starting to rapidly run out, and this nuclear option is a clear indicator of that.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I would also like to know if they can use this tactic for anything else, can Reid use the nuclear option and force this procedure for anything the dems want and the House won’t give them?

Scrumpy on November 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Reid has established the precedent and policy that a simply majority vote can change the Senate’s rules. So, for example, even though this rule change now doesn’t apply to a Supreme Court nomination or legislation (particularly legislation where reconciliation couldn’t be applied towards), there is nothing stopping him from changing the rule again to fit that circumstance.

Reid cannot via rule change, eliminate the Constitutional role and responsibility of the House. Legislation has to be passed by both the Senate and House before it goes to the President. But what this rule change facilitates is making it easier for the Executive Branch to ‘legislate’ via regulatory or executive fiat – and protect those steps from legal challenges as much as possible.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Cruz: Democrats want to pack court with judges to protect ObamaCare

“The heart of this action is directed at packing the D.C. Circuit because that is the court that will review the lawless behavior of the Obama administration implementing ObamaCare,” he said.

Akzed on November 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Cruz: Democrats want to pack court with judges to protect ObamaCare

“The heart of this action is directed at packing the D.C. Circuit because that is the court that will review the lawless behavior of the Obama administration implementing ObamaCare,” he said.

Akzed on November 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM

And this is exactly why McConnell and the GOPe Socialists hate Cruz with a passion.

Cruz has more manhood fortitude than all of the worthless RINOs combined.

Myron Falwell on November 22, 2013 at 1:53 PM

While not defined in the Constitution, the filibuster fits within the intents of the Founding Fathers around the purpose of the Senate as detailed by Madison in Federalist #62. That was the point.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I apologize if I misunderstood your comment – but I have found a lot of commentators here and elsewhere believe that the filibuster is somehow enshrined in the constitution, and your comment could reasonably interpreted as implying the same. As you concede, the filibuster is not enshrined in the constitution. While protection of minority rights – to an extent – is part of the constitution, nothing in Madison’s writings demonstrate a founders intent to have a minority filibuster in the Senate. The intent was to have 2 senators from each state regardless of state size in order to protect smaller states’ rights. Protecting states’ rights, unfortunately, to a large extent went out the window when we amended the Constitution to allow for popular votes for U.S. Senators.

Regardless, I have been against the filibuster for a long time for a lot of reasons. The filibuster is anti-democratic. And, it helps the liberal cause far, far more than the conservative cause.

Plus, the GOP will never make this move because the press would kill the GOP, while the DNC can get away with it. So, let the Dems do it and then when the GOP takes over the Senate, it will already be done.

the filibuster does not work nearly as well for the GOP as it does for the dems. The GOP will filibuster the most seriously deranged liberal nominees – but it lets most of the liberals go through. McCain, Graham, et al never allow filibuster of most that need to be filibustered. In contrast, the DNC filibusters tons of fairly moderate GOP nominees successfully all the time.

And, aside from Obamacare (which didn’t really end up working out) how many pieces of legislation does the GOP really successfully filibuster?

The filibuster is also a useful tool for Dem senators in conservative states. It works likes this – the dems filibuster something or someone popular in a conservative state. they have 46 Senators. They let 5 or 6 Senators from a conservative state vote for cloture knowing that the filibuster will continue. Then that senator can go back and say “I was against the filibuster” when it is his party doing the filibustering.

It’s a parlor trick that needs to go. Elections have consequences and sometimes that means we won’t be able to stop really bad legislation/nominees (not that the GOP does it nearly as much as the DNC anyway). But, in reverse, when the GOP wins, it won’t be stymied by the filibuster either. And Senators will actually have to vote yes/no on issues instead of “being for ‘x’ before being against ‘x’” as Gore famously put it.

And – to those who think the filibuster is some kind of enshrined founding principal – it isn’t. It was not created used until well after the founding fathers. It isn’t mentioned anywhere in the constitution, the declaration of independent, the federalist papers or any other founding documents. So, it can be done away with without harming any conservative constitutional principles.

I’m all for the filibuster being gone.

Or – let me ask this another way – what significant achievements have conservatives obtained through the use of the filibuster? The reality is that the only “achievements” have been derailing a few over-the-top nominees. But the replacement nominees are always just as liberal, just not as outspokenly liberal. So the victory is usually illusory (and transitory for non-judicial nominees who would leave office with the president anyhow).

As a practical matter, enacting huge new boondoggle legislation takes only 51 votes, but repealing any federal program/policy or agency takes 60 votes because of the filibuster. Now, that changes to 51 votes.

Monkeytoe on November 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

BKeyser on November 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Yes. Right now the DC Court which rules on most legislative matters is 4R’s and 4D’s. 3 openings. If he can pack it with 3 more D’s they will most likely rule in his favor on any thing questioning his policies.

Barred on November 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

There are lots of reasons why the move by Harry Reid yesterday was bad, of course, Carl Levin’s opposition focused on the worst of the abuse, which was not the change to the filibuster itself but the violation of the supermajority requirement for mid-session rule changes.

So, the vote to change the rules violated the rules? Doesn’t that mean the rules have not been changed? That is, don’t they first have to vote to change the rule to allow rule changes mid-session?

Surely the house of Congress that considers itself one of the fore-most creators in the world of the rules and laws that the rest of have to live by would not ignore their own rules when changing their own rules.

I can only assume that the media has completely misreported this story, and that this rule change does not actually go into effect until the next session of Congress.

Good thing, too. I was in danger of losing my faith in the integrity of the Senate.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

There are lots of reasons why the move by Harry Reid yesterday was bad, of course, Carl Levin’s opposition focused on the worst of the abuse, which was not the change to the filibuster itself but the violation of the supermajority requirement for mid-session rule changes.

So, the vote to change the rules violated the rules? Doesn’t that mean the rules have not been changed? That is, don’t they first have to vote to change the rule to allow rule changes mid-session?

Surely the house of Congress that considers itself one of the fore-most creators in the world of the rules and laws that the rest of have to live by would not ignore their own rules when changing their own rules.

I can only assume that the media has completely misreported this story, and that this rule change does not actually go into effect until the next session of Congress.

Good thing, too. I was in danger of losing my faith in the integrity of the Senate.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Wait, are these Democrats?

My apologies then for talking about “rules.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

From azked’s 1:17 link

“McConnell said the Tea Party was ‘nothing but a bunch of bullies,’” the source said. “And he said ‘you know how you deal with schoolyard bullies? You punch them in the nose and that’s what we’re going to do.’”

Hot Air didn’t like my first comment, so let me rephrase it:, substituting the M for the first letter in his name for the b in the word I used for Mitch.

Bring it on Mitch. In person. I’ll even let you have first swing.

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM

I think this move is made in desperation by Democrats who realize their grip on power will end next year. They will do whatever they can in the meantime to capitalize on their remaining time in power. Yes, it is remarkably short-sighted, but this move appears to be purely about stacking the courts and the federal bureaucracy with politically-connected incompetents and ideologues while they can. The DC circuit is particularly important to them, as it has original jurisdiction for cases challenging regulations and disputes between the branches of government.

novaculus on November 22, 2013 at 2:17 PM

And from azked’s 1:50 link:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/191158-cruz-dems-want-to-pack-court-to-protect-obamacare

Not just the dems. M, (not b) Mitch McConnell wants to protect it too, nice little statist he is.

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

….Yes, it is remarkably short-sighted, …..
novaculus on November 22, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Not really.

They well understand that:

A: the repubicans aren’t any more interested in having conservative, Constitution loving judges or Cabinet members than they are.

B: The repubicans will roll over and let them change the rules again at the first hint of using the rule against them.

The people who think that when / if the repubicans gain the presidency and senate majority again, that this rule change will lead to a conservative renaissance in D.C. and across the nation are sadly mistaken.

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 2:24 PM

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Fully agree. The land is scroomed from both sides, more so from the Rs. They enable the Ds, and they are only there to stuff their own pockets, and for power.

JFK did more more the people of the USA.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 2:27 PM

BTW, I have to differ with those who argue this is a good thing. I can certainly see there are some positives.

The Democrats who talked piously about the importance of preserving the filibuster when it was helping them are exposed, which is always good. The GOP just might be able to grasp that it’s no good wishing for a rule like the filibuster when the Dems can just ignore the rule or change it. And the warfare is certainly more honest, now that the Dems have officially ignored every rule that inconveniences them, like the one that says you can’t change the rules in the middle of the session.

It’s still a bad thing. The Constitution was designed to pit Congress against the President, with each one jealous to protect their power against the other. Political parties undermine that idea, though. When the President and Congress are both from the same party, they put loyalty to the party above loyalty to their own institutions, and there is effectively no Congressional oversight at all. When the President and Senate are both controlled by one party, the filibuster was a check on abuse by the majority.

We need to restore some way of keeping the president from being a dictator with the collusion of one political party.

Even so, I wouldn’t call for a restoration of the filibuster. If it can be set aside so easily, then it’s not much of a check on majority power abuse, anyway. I sincerely hope no Republican Senators are stupid enough to bind themselves with rules that their adversaries refuse to respect.

As much as we need something like the filibuster, it needs to have more force behind it to do any good. Supermajority requirements in a Constitutional amendment would do the trick. Anything less would be a waste of time.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM

This how tyranny starts. You think the Nazis started out gassing Jews?And the Nazis were human beings with same DNA as this current crop. You don’t think it can happen again? Just wait. This is what you get when you have bunch of Chamberlains on your side. They wont pay but the rest of us will. McCain had nastier words for Cruz and Lee etal. than for the Dems. Wonder how stupid he feels now?? Since it’s useless to be a Republican in the senate, who will be the first to change parties??

rik on November 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Oh, the ugly rearing of unintended consequences biting you back. This ‘great’ move of Obama and the Democrats removes a campaign charge of obstructionism in 2014 against the Republicans and adds to the Republicans quiver the arrow of supreme overreach by the Dems. Chalk this up to ‘be careful what you wish for’. See you in November.

mustng66 on November 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM

2010: upon Sharron Angle’s first visit to Washington DC,
after the primary and during her campaign against Reid,
she visited Mitch McConnell’s office, where she was told:

“I can WORK with Harry Reid!”

Schadensomething or other.

fred5678 on November 22, 2013 at 3:19 PM

As Heritage legal analyst Elizabeth Slattery noted, “Though the rule purportedly applies only to executive branch and judicial nominations—excluding Supreme Court nominations (for now, anyway)—it would seem with 51 votes, Reid can do just about anything.” canopfor on November 22, 2013 at 1:35 PM

They are almost there, they next will drop the rules on legislation. I posted this on another thread:

The real reason for the “nuke” deal is to get an amnesty past.

They can now get Boehner and his RINO’s in the house to pass 5 or 6 deals on immigration in the house, some night oil moment when they attack some one in the night, they will attach 2,000 pages with amnesty buried in it and zip past U.S..
APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Apache knows. Last night I said cutting filibuster on nominations was only step 1

Without limits on filibuster, Cruz would have to filibuster Amnesty or lose credibility. But of Cruz filibustered he would become a bigger hero. Approval of amnesty is sinking.

But if Reid had blocked filibuster on legislation first, to ram in amnesty like he rammed in Obamacare, it would become a flash point with more than just conservatives

To get amnesty they had to block Cruz. To block Cruz they needed a way to slide in rules changes. Fast tracking nominations puts the ‘blame’ on DEMs, which helps DEMs with their base but doesn’t hurt RINOs with the GOP base.

Now that rules have been broken, it didnt take long for STEP 2:

After the Senate voted to change filibuster rules Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for more reforms.

“This has been escalating for a long period of time and it was time to stop it and that’s what we did this morning,” Harkin said. “Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”

Boehner just now promise Amnesty is not over – to his big money backers – you think he isnt in on it?

Harkin said he’d support further rule changes that would prevent a single senator from blocking legislation and protect minority rights by allowing for germane amendment votes.

Sounds like the plan. Send amnesty to the Senate in chunks. Opposition will only be able to amend. DEM-RINO coalition will be able to ram in Amnesty without debate – because an election is coming and which side do these weasels want to take in the debate?

Many want to pretend they are against amnesty. With a 51 vote, they can run on being against it

Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, can claim their hands were tied. Cruz will be stifled. Tea party screwed.

People are being gamed. and both parties are in on it.
entagor on November 22, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Harry Reid to “McCAin” “don’t need ya”, bye bye,,,
APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 22, 2013 at 12:27 PM

correct

entagor on November 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM

That’s bad news for Democrats, and very good news for Republicans if they can win both the White House and Senate in 2016. Harry Reid just gave them carte blanche if that happens, and no one outside the Beltway seems to mind.

There’s Ed and his rose-colored glasses again. The GOP will work with their “friends” and put the rule back in. I guarantee it.

SouthernGent on November 22, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Good Points Apache & Entagor.

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 9:00 PM

That’s bad news for Democrats, and very good news for Republicans if they can win both the White House and Senate in 2016. Harry Reid just gave them carte blanche if that happens, and no one outside the Beltway seems to mind.

There’s Ed and his rose-colored glasses again. The GOP will work with their “friends” and put the rule back in. I guarantee it.

SouthernGent on November 22, 2013 at 7:40 PM

They’d be smart to just smile and say “we’ll see”.

slickwillie2001 on November 22, 2013 at 10:09 PM