It’s literlly called that. For as long as I’ve been following US politics, it hasn’t been a question of whether the filibuster could be removed to pass legislation with 51 votes. Instead the discussions have been around whether something is worth setting the precedent.
So basically a Senator claims that the Senate rules have been violated, the (senate) president disagrees, the senator appeals and a simple majority decides right or wrong.
Given that quite clearly no rules were actually broken, whats to stop State Attorney Generals from suing the US Federal Government to prevent implementation just like they did with countless other things, namely student loan forgiveness?
Given that quite clearly no rules were actually broken
You and I, and 50 state AGs might feel that there have “clearly” been no rule violations, but neither you nor I nor a state AG, nor a federal judge are constitutionally empowered to make that determination.
According to Article I Section 5 Clause 2, the power to “Determine the rules of its proceedings” is granted to… The Senate.
If the Senate says its rules have been broken, the Senate’s rules have been broken.
Lmao, “just ignore the federal judges” you sound like the Trump admin rn.
You realize thousands of federal employees were rehired due to orders from federal judges? You realize the large majority of Biden Era student aid forgiveness was blocked by federal courts?
The courts can decide the Senate is responsible for its own rules but it can also decide that a simple majority didn’t have the power to enact multibillion dollar legislation by the strict wording of its own rules.
That said, if we can get another majority in then I highly recommend they try it. I’d even be willing to call my representative and ask them.
but it can also decide that a simple majority didn’t have the power to enact multibillion dollar legislation by the strict wording of its own rules.
You are not understanding what the Senate is doing here. The “Nuclear Option” is the Senate rewriting its rules. They absolutely have that power. It’s specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The court does not have the constitutional authority to demand the Senate follow a previous version of its rules. The court must accept the new rules the Senate writes for itself, because the Constitution gives them the power to establish such rules.
The Nuclear Option has never been used to rewrite its rules but to change how the rules have been interpreted, such as in 2013 and 2017 where the ability to filibuster was not extended to SCOTUS nominations and presidential cabinet picks. To rewrite the senate rules requires 67 senators, I was mistaken earlier when I said 60, as outlined in the 1975 fillibuster reform OR it could even take 100 votes as outlined in the Senate rules Article 5
V. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES
No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day’s notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.
The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.
We’re talking about the laws passed as a result of change of interpretation of the rules such that the rule is not followed at all per its intention in the previous 1975 legislation which introduced it.
The student loan forgiveness failed as far as I’m aware because Biden used a previous legislation which didn’t actually allow for this instead of passing new legislation. If you write a law and you do something that the law doesn’t let you do, you may get stopped by the courts. If you however want to do all the things that are needed to establish universal healthcare, you can put them in a bill and pass it with a simple majority in the United States of America. Don’t ask me why it hasn’t happened. I already said what I think.
you can put them in a bill and pass it with a simple majority in the United States of America.
Are you an American? I only ask because this is not as simple as you’re making it out to be and that might be because you’re not familiar with the Congressional arcana. Many Americans aren’t either, of course, but given the context it’d be interesting to know.
Canadian since 2005, inevitably watching USpoli closely. Am likely much more familiar with it than the average American. Same goes for Canadian politics.
The nuclear option is made possible by the principle in Senate procedure that appeals from rulings of the chair on points of order relating to nondebatable questions are themselves nondebatable.
“Points of order” are different than legislation like healthcare.
The use of the nuclear option to abolish the 60-vote threshold for cloture on legislation has been proposed, but not successfully effected.
I don’t see an argument here that says it can’t be used for legislation. The arguments in the article as well as made by politicians have been that it abaolutely can be used. The arguments against the usage not the possibility have been about the effect of losing their own ability to filibuster legislation after that. There are so many examples out there that I get the feeling you just haven’t heard or read about it. Here’s one. And here’s Chucky’s plan from 2022 which got torpedoed by Manchinema. Please read about it because it’s important to know what shit politicians are spinning when they don’t do what you elected them for. I used to believe that the filibuster was some ironclad barrier that required 60 votes or cooperation from the opposition, cause that’s how it’s was spun. I had’t paid enough attention at the time to understand there’s always been an asterisk - can remove the barrier, don’t want to becauae X, Y or Z.
Whats your magical solution to remove the filibuster with 50 votes and a VP?
It’s literlly called that. For as long as I’ve been following US politics, it hasn’t been a question of whether the filibuster could be removed to pass legislation with 51 votes. Instead the discussions have been around whether something is worth setting the precedent.
So basically a Senator claims that the Senate rules have been violated, the (senate) president disagrees, the senator appeals and a simple majority decides right or wrong.
Given that quite clearly no rules were actually broken, whats to stop State Attorney Generals from suing the US Federal Government to prevent implementation just like they did with countless other things, namely student loan forgiveness?
You and I, and 50 state AGs might feel that there have “clearly” been no rule violations, but neither you nor I nor a state AG, nor a federal judge are constitutionally empowered to make that determination.
According to Article I Section 5 Clause 2, the power to “Determine the rules of its proceedings” is granted to… The Senate.
If the Senate says its rules have been broken, the Senate’s rules have been broken.
Lmao, “just ignore the federal judges” you sound like the Trump admin rn.
You realize thousands of federal employees were rehired due to orders from federal judges? You realize the large majority of Biden Era student aid forgiveness was blocked by federal courts?
You’re not getting it. I didn’t say we should ignore the courts.
When you try to sue, the courts will take one look at Article I and rule that the Senate is responsible for its own rules.
The cases you are talking about did not arise from senate rulemaking procedures. They do not set the precedent you suggest.
The courts can decide the Senate is responsible for its own rules but it can also decide that a simple majority didn’t have the power to enact multibillion dollar legislation by the strict wording of its own rules.
That said, if we can get another majority in then I highly recommend they try it. I’d even be willing to call my representative and ask them.
You are not understanding what the Senate is doing here. The “Nuclear Option” is the Senate rewriting its rules. They absolutely have that power. It’s specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The court does not have the constitutional authority to demand the Senate follow a previous version of its rules. The court must accept the new rules the Senate writes for itself, because the Constitution gives them the power to establish such rules.
FYI that is the norm for them
The Nuclear Option has never been used to rewrite its rules but to change how the rules have been interpreted, such as in 2013 and 2017 where the ability to filibuster was not extended to SCOTUS nominations and presidential cabinet picks. To rewrite the senate rules requires 67 senators, I was mistaken earlier when I said 60, as outlined in the 1975 fillibuster reform OR it could even take 100 votes as outlined in the Senate rules Article 5
The courts only have a say in laws they pass not internal rules of either chamber…
We’re talking about the laws passed as a result of change of interpretation of the rules such that the rule is not followed at all per its intention in the previous 1975 legislation which introduced it.
The student loan forgiveness failed as far as I’m aware because Biden used a previous legislation which didn’t actually allow for this instead of passing new legislation. If you write a law and you do something that the law doesn’t let you do, you may get stopped by the courts. If you however want to do all the things that are needed to establish universal healthcare, you can put them in a bill and pass it with a simple majority in the United States of America. Don’t ask me why it hasn’t happened. I already said what I think.
Are you an American? I only ask because this is not as simple as you’re making it out to be and that might be because you’re not familiar with the Congressional arcana. Many Americans aren’t either, of course, but given the context it’d be interesting to know.
Canadian since 2005, inevitably watching USpoli closely. Am likely much more familiar with it than the average American. Same goes for Canadian politics.
“Points of order” are different than legislation like healthcare.
I don’t see an argument here that says it can’t be used for legislation. The arguments in the article as well as made by politicians have been that it abaolutely can be used. The arguments against the usage not the possibility have been about the effect of losing their own ability to filibuster legislation after that. There are so many examples out there that I get the feeling you just haven’t heard or read about it. Here’s one. And here’s Chucky’s plan from 2022 which got torpedoed by Manchinema. Please read about it because it’s important to know what shit politicians are spinning when they don’t do what you elected them for. I used to believe that the filibuster was some ironclad barrier that required 60 votes or cooperation from the opposition, cause that’s how it’s was spun. I had’t paid enough attention at the time to understand there’s always been an asterisk - can remove the barrier, don’t want to becauae X, Y or Z.