Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
No such rule exists like that that I’m aware of. Majority leader can raise a point of order to the presiding officer that a simple majority is required, they can deny it but it is then appealed by the chair, then appealed and overturned by majority vote.
GOP actually used the no filibuster on Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Neil Gorsuch, when Democrats filibustered during his confirmation in the Senate, he was confirmed by simple majority. 52/48.
It’s interesting to note that the filibuster rule is not in the Constitution. It was a rule created in the Senate in 1806, but strangely wasn’t used until the late 1830s, it was strengthened more in the 1970s. So when there is talk of going ‘Nuclear’, which is precisely what President Trump suggested should happen if the Stalemate and government shutdown had continued, is in essence to go Constitutional, by means of winning a vote by simple majority, or i.e 51.
Personally, I think it’s a stupid rule, it’s unconstitutional and I’m surprised it’s been allowed to pass as a legal qualifier when it comes to passing or rejecting legislation.
|
The 60/40 rule was designed to promote bi-partisanship, rather than just one party (be it Democrats or Republicans) riding roughshod over the other; if you need the other party votes, you have to negotiate.
When people say there should be a simple majority vote, they are only looking short-term; what happens when the other party gets in with a majority? (as is looking likely for the Dems in the 2018 mid-terms).
This is why Mitch McConnell is against it - he can see it might be a short-term gain to get Republican bills through for a year, but it could come back to bite the Republicans in the bum in November...