# The 2013 Reid Nuclear option and the current dilemma for the Democrats **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 13, 2022, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679 "2022-01-13T03:01:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/61 "2022-01-13T21:54:51Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Simple. Senate rules are constituted in 2 parts, via its parliamentary rules, and via precedents. I reject the premise that precedents and written rules are on equal footing. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Senate Republicans file suit Nobody but the Senate itself has jurisdiction. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Republicans prevent the abuse of procedure by eliminating the nuclear option next time they come to power. If they had principles maybe they would have. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/62 "2022-01-13T21:59:57Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > According to the [Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/20/as-covid-19-cases-increase-most-americans-support-no-excuse-absentee-voting/), 65 percent of adults said that any voter should be able to vote early or absentee without an excuse. I would be interested in looking at a breakdown by state. In a rush now but I didn’t see that on Pew’s press release - they had aggregated all the voters in states that don’t allow it by party, but I’d want to look at what the majority opinion is in each state, without regard to party. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/63 "2022-01-13T22:05:32Z")
> [@XT](#): > > He did that because the Dems had already set the precedence (for this round of changes at least) for it in 2013. That’s the thing about unintended consequences. Nothing to say he wouldn’t have anyway, as they can always change stuff, but it was harder to do it the first time after 40 years of status quo than to do it a second time…or a 3rd time if and when they want to change that again. I’m not sure the consequences were unintended. A Senate without a filibuster should be a goal of the Democratic Party, since they are the larger party. Removing the filibuster entirely was too difficult. But a small step starts the snowball rolling. The Republican Party pushed it further, which might’ve made sense in the short term, but in the long term makes it easier for the Democrats to take the next step. Sooner, rather than later, there will be no filibuster, to the long-term advantage of the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/64 "2022-01-13T22:31:17Z")
That does seem to be a tricky way to get one’s way. It probably will have many unintended consequences. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/65 "2022-01-13T22:41:16Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The thing is, only progressives seem to see ‘rights’ being violated. What a lot of other people see is a watering-down of election integrity to make it easier for people friendly to Democrats to vote. Mail-in voting, for example, is crazy. Taking dead peoole off the electoral roles is not ‘voter suppression’ to most people. No, to make it easier for people to vote. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Taking dead peoole off the electoral roles is not ‘voter suppression’ to most people. Is stopping that part of either Voter rights bill? > **[A new national holiday, redistricting reform and more: What’s in Dems’ latest...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/what-s-democrats-latest-voting-legislation-what-would-bills-do-n1287301)** > > Senate Democrats are considering two measures, which advocates say would reverse some Republican-backed state laws. > **[What Might Democrats’ Voting Rights Bill Entail?](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-might-democrats-voting-rights-bill-entail/)** > > UPDATE (Jan. 13, 2022, 10:33 a.m.): On the evening of Jan. 12, Democrats combined the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act into … > **[The Freedom to Vote Act Would Counteract State Laws That Undermine Elections](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/freedom-vote-act-counteract-state-laws-undermine-elections/)** > > Far-reaching federal legislation would set national standards to combat many new state laws aimed at suppressing voters and sabotaging valid election results. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/66 "2022-01-13T22:47:34Z")
The filibuster is and has always been a terrible and anti-democratic idea, and the sooner it’s eliminated entirely, the better. I believe this follows from the basic principles of democracy, and partisan considerations don’t change that. But even with the partisan considerations, a filibuster favors the party who wants government to be dysfunctional and incapable of accomplish anything, and disfavors the party who wants government to be good. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/67 "2022-01-13T23:13:50Z")
It seems extremely unlikely that, in the next handful of election cycles, any Democratic candidate, aside from perhaps Manchin (due to his uniqueness as a bright red state Democrat), will ever win a senatorial primary without promising to kill the filibuster. If so, that means it’s just a matter of time. At some point the Democrats will have 50+1 Senators in support of killing the filibuster. Its days are numbered. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/68 "2022-01-13T23:19:30Z")
> [@XT](#): > > By changing the status quo that had been in effect for the previous 40 years there were unintended consequences. I don’t know what they ‘should’ have done differently, but that’s the reality. The problem is that if you’re Harry Reid in 2013, you don’t have the option to go back to how things worked for most of those 40 years. For most of the history of the 60-vote threshold, parties would not use the filibuster to the point McConnell was using it; the point at which the federal judicial system was going to be further and further understaffed. So he had the choice of either changing the filibuster rules, unilaterally disarming, or allowing the number of judges to keep declining. Saying that the course of action he took led to negative consequences is an incomplete analysis - he didn’t have the ability to just go back to how things worked in the 90’s. > [@Max\_S](#): > > The nuclear option itself, the procedure, is “not following the rules” in the first degree. > > The justification used is, our bill is so essential to government we are forced to “not follow the rules”. I disagree with you about whether going nuclear constitutes a dishonest practice. However even with your view, do you think that there are things that the senate does that are essential to the government? Presumably confirming federal judges would have to be. > [@Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](#): > > Had Reid not removed the filibuster for federal judges, would the Republicans had gutted the entire Federal Judiciary, or would they have eventually caved to allowing _some_ nominations through? Likely they would have used the same approach they used once they were in a Senate majority and Obama was still president. There were some confirmations but they left a ton of vacancies open. > [@Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](#): > > Had Reid not removed the filibuster for federal judges, would McConnell have? If he neither did this nor found a way to get the Democrats to confirm his picks, that would also be colossally stupid. The endgame for the previous status quo is a hollowed out court system. That means that there would be no way to rein in a president from the opposite party to do whatever he wants, which isn’t good for either a Democratic-led legislature facing off against a Republican president or a Republican legislature facing off against a Democratic president. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I reject the premise that precedents and written rules are on equal footing. Your interpretation of how sacrosanct the written rules legislatures have for themselves are is very far from the Washington consensus (for better or worse) but even if we did go by every single rule to the letter, indefinite filibusters could be essentially removed. The 3/5’s rule only applies to debate, and there is a senate rule that debate must be relevant to the question being given to the Senate. So once the filibusters run out of legitimate things to debate about a given piece of legislation, their filibuster could be broken. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/69 "2022-01-13T23:30:27Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > there is a senate rule that debate must be relevant to the question being given to the Senate The [“Pastore Rule”](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45134.pdf) only requires debate to be germane during the first three hours of a legislative day. It requires another Senator to raise a point of order to enforce, and the speaking Senator does not lose the floor as long as he or she return to the topic at hand. In practice, it is almost never enforced. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/70 "2022-01-13T23:34:19Z")
I’m engaging with the hypothetical that every senate rule must be followed exactly. The fact that it’s never enforced, and the fact that the remedy is to return to the topic are conventions, not in the actual text. It’s true that it only applies for set periods, which is all that would be necessary to break the filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/71 "2022-01-13T23:48:07Z")
I don’t think it would be that difficult to stay on topic for three hours. Of course, the Chair could simply rule an objection valid based on his or her own interpretation of what constitutes “germaneness” (which would be subject to a point of order against his or her ruling, requiring a majority vote to overturn). In which case the next filibustering Senator can stand up and take over. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2022, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/72 "2022-01-13T23:53:12Z")
Sure, and then you might have to go back the next day and the next until they run out of relevant arguments, and have an interpretation that repeating the same arguments that have been discussed previously is not germane. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/73 "2022-01-14T01:36:54Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > > Do you think passing this will guarantee Democratic victories in the next election? > > That is not the purpose of this legislation. Where do you get the bizarre idea that that is what this is about? > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I didn’t. 🤨 🤔 🙄 > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I know you’ll disagree, but you are in a minority on this. Hey look, everyone: **Sam** is trying out the conservative strategy of simply declaring something to be true and inarguable! ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/74 "2022-01-14T01:39:39Z")
I think the vast majority of Senators would be loath to get into a position where they’re routinely judging the “germaneness” of their colleagues’ remarks. Almost every Senator regards the ability to stray off topic onto whatever’s on his or her mind to be a God-given right. Procedurally what you’re saying is possible, but practically it’s very unlikely given the above and that today’s Senate apparently doesn’t have the same concerns as @Max_S about the propriety of the nuclear option. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/75 "2022-01-14T14:40:27Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > However even with your view, do you think that there are things that the senate does that are essential to the government? Presumably confirming federal judges would have to be. In my view, it is irresponsible to go nuclear except as a last resort. If this voting rights bill is so important to government, then you should be willing to sacrifice Senate business for a week or two. From what I’ve read about the '60s they would do this - if the Senate majority leader had a bill he thought was super important, and he had the votes to pass it, it would come to the floor and tie up all of the Senate’s business. They would try to negotiate in the interest of bipartisanship, to avoid a filibuster - but when negotiations fail they move up the vote and the filibuster actually happens. Perhaps more important than tying up other Senate business, all of the Senators have to be ready at a moment’s notice for the filibuster to end and the vote to take place. The filibuster is a game of chicken: who will cave first? Will the majority party finally decide the bill isn’t so important after all, or will the ones holding the floor decide it isn’t worth it to hold up the Senate any longer? The threat of a filibuster has held up countless legislative agendas, permanently. But the filibusters a party musters for any particular bill never last more than a couple days themselves. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/76 "2022-01-14T14:45:50Z")
Sure, I’m referring to the “nuclear option” as making changes to Senate rules and/or norms so that a Senate agenda item can’t be indefinitely blocked by a minority caucus. I personally don’t care if that means talking filibuster, carve out or just getting rid of it, as long as the results are that essential government functions can’t be blocked forever. If talking filibuster would work in the sense that it was possible for the Senate to do things that we agree are essential, possibly with a delay, that would still constitute using the nuclear option. So presumably if the Democrats went back to a talking filibuster, and the net effect was that the GOP didn’t have a practical avenue to outright block voting rights legislation, that would be OK with you? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/77 "2022-01-14T14:50:12Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > If talking filibuster would work in the sense that it was possible for the Senate to do things that we agree are essential, possibly with a delay, that would still constitute using the nuclear option. No, it wouldn’t. I fully support a talking filibuster and strongly oppose the nuclear option until, at the very least, you try forcing a talking filibuster first. If you want to unilaterally categorize both as “nuclear options”, whatever name you use for the procedure used under Reid and McConnell regarding cloture, I’m strongly against _that_ as an immediate step. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/78 "2022-01-14T14:53:00Z")
I mean the practical effect is what matters. If the practical effect of a talking filibuster is that the minority caucus can’t use the filibuster as a veto, that is the same as if the filibuster was completely removed. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/79 "2022-01-14T14:55:36Z")
The practical effect of a return to the talking filibuster depends on the resolve of individuals in the Senate, something which hasn’t been tested since 1970. It may well turn out that the Republican Senators today have excellent morale and, by chaining filibusters, can speak for 30 days straight before giving up; and that Democratic Senators today will give up if they have to stick around the floor for more than two days straight. (With margins like we have today, it is a weakest-link-in-the-chain situation for Democrats.) ~Max ---
**Author:** ![SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19adc/32.png) [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff_II)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2022, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679/80 "2022-01-14T14:56:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It seems extremely unlikely that, in the next handful of election cycles, any Democratic candidate, aside from perhaps Manchin (due to his uniqueness as a bright red state Democrat), will ever win a senatorial primary without promising to kill the filibuster. If so, that means it’s just a matter of time. At some point the Democrats will have 50+1 Senators in support of killing the filibuster. Its days are numbered. If the Democrats become a minority in the Senate, their enthusiasm for killing the filibuster will diminish considerably, certainly to the point where it’s extremely unlikely to be any sort of litmus test for their candidates (even in the unlikely event that it would otherwise be so). But right now there’s overwhelming support in their caucus for it, with - AFAICT - only a couple of holdouts. So if they increase their margin by a couple of seats it’s very likely to happen even with the current incumbents. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2013-reid-nuclear-option-and-the-current-dilemma-for-the-democrats/957679.md?page=5)