[lbo-talk] Democrats lost again

[J Cullen]

In the normal course of events, the Republicans would need a 
two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, to change the rules in mid-session. 
But in essence, if the Democrats filibustered a judicial nominee, 
Cheney, as the Senate's presiding officer, was going to rule the 
judicial filibuster unconstitutional and proceed to the vote because 
the Senate's role is to "advise and consent" on nominations, not 
"advise and consent and filibuster." It's nonsense, of course, but 
the Republications are betting (with pretty good odds) that the 
federal courts will not interfere in the procedures of the Senate.

-- Jim Cullen


>Howdy.
>
>I've been scratching my head about this as well. From what I can tell,
>the Repugs got everything in this compromise, including a pledge that
>the Dems won't filibuster except in "extraordinary circumstances." But
>there's nothing to stop the Repugs from going nuclear then either.
>
>I also read something the other night that said that the rules change
>threatened by the Repugs actually included a circumvention of the
>usual rules to change a rule. That is, in order to change the rule,
>they wouldn't obey the normal rules, which require 60 votes. But they
>were somehow going to use Cheney to circumvent this. How? Does anyone
>know?
>
>Christian
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk