Hacker News Reader

Comment by Flammy | Hacker News Reader

So there was some press this morning on the democratic filibuster... It is not clear to me why it didn't last longer. Can anyone shed some light?

View on HN

The Democrats removed the 60 vote requirement to break all filibusters for all appointments excluding SCOTUS appointments. It is turning around to bite them in the butt.

Not sure about that. At some point government has to work in spite of a reluctant congress. The rules should be about making governance better, not just helping our side to win the battle.

Just remember you said this when it comes time to nominate Gorsuch.

"Back in 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the Senate’s filibuster rules so presidential Cabinet nominees only required 51 votes, rather than 60, to be confirmed."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/17/14251600/tr...

> Republicans warned that it would not only tear apart cross-party relationships in the Senate, but it will come back to haunt Democrats if they return to the minority. "You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned Democrats.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry...

Tragically, the Democrats believed that the Republicans would nominate people who were at least tangentially qualified for the position. Took 'em only one election to screw it up.

There's no longer a filibuster for cabinet nominees:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/4/donald-trumps...

Harry Reed reduced the threshold for confirming non-Supreme Court nominees to a simple majority, preventing a filibuster.

The Senate was locked 50-50, in which case the Vice President becomes the deciding vote.

It wasn't a filibuster. The Senate got rid of that for everything except Supreme Court nominations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com