5 ms·

At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So n

At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee approvals. EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even possible for Democrats.

300bps 12y ago
They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster. Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
- noobermin 12y ago
  Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history. This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations. To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/senate-filibusters.html?ref=politics http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill. These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.
- owenmarshall 12y ago
  > Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. Which lead to Republican senators using another procedural technique (refusing unanimous consent) to slow down appointments.[1] This means appointments were delayed for days, and even weeks, after which time the same obstructing senators often voted for the appointee anyways. It's disingenuous to claim that appointments would go through scot free after Reid altered Senate procedures. 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-reform-obama-nominees_n_5358863.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-r...
  - cpleppert 12y ago
    There is no difference between refusing unanimous consent and a filibuster. Reid just changed the cloture requirement to 51 from 60.
Shivetya 12y ago
as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word. Reid was pro at changing the rules to prevent opposing views, people need to understand just how much of the problems in th Senate were his doing and his doing alone. Mister Nuclear just got nuked by the electorate
- commandar 12y ago
  >as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word. Untrue. Fillibuster rules were only changed in late 2013, after years of being unable to even get votes on nominees.
- cpleppert 12y ago
  >>as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process No they passed the bill with 60 votes during the only time they actually had a supermajority. There were no rules changes needed or required. ACA was passed and signed before changes were made in the reconciliation process.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- king_jester 12y ago
  > as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word. Not quite. The Democrats had 60 Senate seats for a very brief period before Scott Brown took over Ted Kennedy's seat when he passed away. The main ACA bill in the senate was passed with 60 votes the normal way. A second bill that was to modify that bill was passed with reconciliation as a way to get members of the House to drop their version of ACA, accept the currently passed Senate version, and then modify that to appease some of the concerns of various congresspeople. > Reid was pro at changing the rules to prevent opposing views, people need to understand just how much of the problems in th Senate were his doing and his doing alone. Mister Nuclear just got nuked by the electorate I so very much hate the 'going nuclear' talk. Filibuster breaks at 60 votes is a shit idea in the first place, plus changing it only in one case for appointments is hardly shaking up the political order at large. In fact, the reluctance to do it for all types of votes shows how conservative leadership for the dems were being.

300bps 12y ago

They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster. Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...

noobermin 12y ago
Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history. This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations. To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/senate-filibusters.html?ref=politics http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
- Amezarak 12y ago
  It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill. These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.
owenmarshall 12y ago
> Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. Which lead to Republican senators using another procedural technique (refusing unanimous consent) to slow down appointments.[1] This means appointments were delayed for days, and even weeks, after which time the same obstructing senators often voted for the appointee anyways. It's disingenuous to claim that appointments would go through scot free after Reid altered Senate procedures. 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-reform-obama-nominees_n_5358863.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-r...
- cpleppert 12y ago
  There is no difference between refusing unanimous consent and a filibuster. Reid just changed the cloture requirement to 51 from 60.

Shivetya 12y ago

as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word. Reid was pro at changing the rules to prevent opposing views, people need to understand just how much of the problems in th Senate were his doing and his doing alone. Mister Nuclear just got nuked by the electorate

commandar 12y ago
>as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word. Untrue. Fillibuster rules were only changed in late 2013, after years of being unable to even get votes on nominees.
cpleppert 12y ago
>>as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process No they passed the bill with 60 votes during the only time they actually had a supermajority. There were no rules changes needed or required. ACA was passed and signed before changes were made in the reconciliation process.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
king_jester 12y ago
> as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a word. Not quite. The Democrats had 60 Senate seats for a very brief period before Scott Brown took over Ted Kennedy's seat when he passed away. The main ACA bill in the senate was passed with 60 votes the normal way. A second bill that was to modify that bill was passed with reconciliation as a way to get members of the House to drop their version of ACA, accept the currently passed Senate version, and then modify that to appease some of the concerns of various congresspeople. > Reid was pro at changing the rules to prevent opposing views, people need to understand just how much of the problems in th Senate were his doing and his doing alone. Mister Nuclear just got nuked by the electorate I so very much hate the 'going nuclear' talk. Filibuster breaks at 60 votes is a shit idea in the first place, plus changing it only in one case for appointments is hardly shaking up the political order at large. In fact, the reluctance to do it for all types of votes shows how conservative leadership for the dems were being.