Democrats to give Trump Cabinet picks the Garland treatment

[BumRushDaShow]

47. "Harry Reid destroyed any chances to stop them by using the nuclear option"

Not really. There were negotiated rules changes put into effect because at one time, the 60-vote threshold was primarily reserved for items that affected the budget -

<...>

Some recent background on the Senate filibuster

When Senate Democrats went nuclear in 2013 to reinterpret the filibuster rule, they targeted the Senate’s Rule 22. The “cloture” rule requires 60 votes to cut off Senate debate (or 67, for motions to debate changes to the rules). Once debate is ended by invoking “cloture,” 30 hours of post-cloture debate must elapse — unless all 100 senators agree to waive it. Only then does the Senate take a simple-majority vote on the measure or motion. After cloture, remaining amendments must be narrowly related to the underlying bill.

In 2013, Democrats changed this for executive and judicial branch nominations (except the Supreme Court). They reduced the number of votes required to break debate to a simple majority — and essentially banned nomination filibusters. Except for those nominations and some measures that are protected by law from filibusters (such as the congressional budget resolution), Senate rules still require 60 votes to cut off debate before the Senate votes.

<...>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/14/this-is-why-senate-republicans-might-not-go-nuclear/

However the "hold" is still there (despite some Senators claiming they would not use it - but with some of the newest ones like Cotton, enveloping themselves in it) and that was a tool that was essentially abused by the GOP for all sorts of things and can be used by Democrats to slow the sinking of the Titanic.

And the part of that article that I essentially promoted is this -

<...>

But some Republican senators also benefit from lax Senate rules — for example, allowing them to take measures hostage with a threat to filibuster. Small majorities tend to be more cohesive. But this slim GOP majority’s hold on the agenda could be tenuous if one or two of the party’s senators uses the rules to advance their own agenda. The filibuster has persisted for over two centuries in part because senators, regardless of party status, benefit from lax parliamentary rules.

Third, will Republicans be able to secure 51 GOP votes to reinterpret Senate rules?
I suspect that some of the longer-serving senators, who remember serving in the minority, might be loathe to jettison their future right to filibuster.

Moreover, as Greg Koger reminds us, Republicans themselves might benefit from the filibuster: It allows the GOP to blame the Democrats for blocking parts of the Trump agenda, especially measures GOP senators might oppose. Moreover, requiring 60 votes for cloture would allow Republicans to pursue controversial votes that force electorally cross-pressured Democrats to take costly positions. It’s not clear that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will have the votes to ban the filibuster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/14/this-is-why-senate-republicans-might-not-go-nuclear/

I.e., there are some folks in there with big egos.

The above-linked article mentions what might happen with those Ds on the ballot in 2018 and it will be up to Schumer to bob and weave through the next year, as well a decision that the party may need to make regarding Ds who run in GOP-heavy states and which items on our platform to make an issue about versus some of the perennial hot topics.