socaltownie said:
Could not the Republicans in the Senate simple convene and pass a new rule providing that cloture on CRs could be passed with a simple majority (aka no filibuster).
The answer is that the GOP are newt Gingrich arsonists - from my perspective. They are based in the conservative Christian mindset that says you are either saved and going to heaven or damned as a Heathen/Pagan/infidel/gentile - whichever word you like - and going to hell.
In other words, they don't negotiate. They are black and white, and pompous to think they are morally/ethically right.
If they wreck everything, so be it, because they are saved and going to heaven in the end of days.
People will reject my assertion, and that's fine, but I do believe there is a portion this fits to a T.
It used to be 60% for everything in the senate but when Obama won the second time GOP thought they were clever and try to F him up so they stonewalled his cabinet and such.
Quote:
Let's unpack what happened and why the Democrats did it in 2013 because it really was a "forced hand" situation, at least from their perspective.
Context: The gridlock in Obama's second term
After the 2010 midterms, Republicans took the House, and by 2013 (Obama's second term) they were using the Senate filibuster aggressively to block not just legislation but also routine executive appointments and judicial nominees.
By mid-2013:
There were dozens of key vacancies in federal agencies and courts.
Republicans were filibustering nominees not because of the individuals, but to paralyze entire agencies e.g. the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and several D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judges.
Senate Democrats saw it as a deliberate attempt to nullify Obama's ability to govern through the normal administrative process.
The breaking point
Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to negotiate compromises, but Republicans kept using the 60-vote threshold to bottle up nominees indefinitely.
In November 2013, after a string of blocked D.C. Circuit judicial nominations, Reid invoked the nuclear option:
He raised a point of order that cloture on executive and judicial nominees (except the Supreme Court) could be invoked by a simple majority.
The presiding officer ruled that this contradicted Rule XXII.
Reid appealed the ruling, and by a majority vote (5248), the Senate overturned the chair, thereby setting a new precedent.
This was the first time in U.S. history that the filibuster was effectively neutered for an entire class of business.
How Democrats justified it
They argued:
The minority was using the filibuster as a weapon of total obstruction, not deliberation.
The executive branch was being crippled agencies couldn't function without Senate-confirmed leadership.
The Constitution requires the Senate to provide advice and consent, not prevent any consent at all.
Reid called it a necessary step to allow "a president, any president, to make appointments."
How Republicans responded
Republicans warned Democrats would "regret this," predicting that one day it would be used against them which came true in 2017, when Mitch McConnell extended the same precedent to Supreme Court nominees (enabling the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch).
Summary
Yes Democrats did it in 2013 because GOP obstruction made basic governance unworkable.
They didn't abolish the legislative filibuster; they limited the change to nominations (except SCOTUS at that time).
But it cracked the door open to what McConnell later finished in 2017.
Then trump's people did it for SCOTUS appointments in 2017. You'll recall how Scalia died in February 2016, 11 months before Obama was to leave. McConnell presided in the debate and (just like in 2013) would not bring on any approval hearings for Merrick Garland.
Thus once Trump took over, and a new nominee (Gorsuch) replaced Garland, McConnell immediately used the Nuclear option for SCOTUS appointments - UPPING THE PARTISAN ANTE.
Quote:
the 2017 "nuclear option" was the Republican sequel to the Democrats' 2013 move.
Here's what happened, and why:
The setup
In early 2017, President Donald Trump had just taken office. His first major appointment was to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia, who had died in February 2016.
President Obama had nominated Merrick Garland for that seat in 2016, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) refused to hold hearings or a vote, arguing that it was an election year and the next president should choose the nominee. That decision was unprecedented in modern times and enraged Democrats.
So by 2017, when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, Senate Democrats felt the seat had been stolen. They mounted a filibuster against his nomination.
The trigger
Republicans had 52 seats enough to confirm Gorsuch if a simple majority were sufficient, but not enough to reach the 60 votes required to invoke cloture under Senate Rule XXII.
When Democrats successfully filibustered Gorsuch, McConnell responded by doing exactly what Harry Reid had done in 2013 but extending it further:
The "nuclear option," round two
On April 6, 2017, McConnell raised a point of order that cloture on Supreme Court nominations could be invoked by a simple majority.
The presiding officer ruled that this contradicted Senate Rule XXII (since the rule still required 60 votes).
McConnell then appealed the ruling, and by a simple majority (4852), the Senate overturned the chair creating a new precedent.
As a result:
All judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court, could now advance with a simple majority.
The 60-vote threshold still remained for legislation (bills, resolutions, appropriations, etc.).
Gorsuch was confirmed the next day, 5445.
The reasoning and the backlash
Republicans argued that Democrats had already opened the door in 2013, and that they were simply applying the same rule to the Supreme Court.
Democrats countered that McConnell's refusal to even consider Garland had broken norms first, and that the 2017 move further eroded the Senate's checks and balances.
Aftermath
This 2017 change paved the way for:
Brett Kavanaugh (2018) and Amy Coney Barrett (2020) to be confirmed by simple majority votes.
The modern era where Supreme Court confirmations are purely partisan.
Summary
2013 Democrats went nuclear for lower courts + executive appointments (to overcome GOP obstruction).
2017 Republicans extended it to Supreme Court nominees (to overcome Democratic filibuster of Gorsuch).
* Never used (yet) for legislation or appropriations.
So, now here we are, and you ask why they can't do it for Spending bills (Appropriations). They can, but it'll come at a cost to democracy and come back to bite them.
Quote:
Here's how it actually works and why it's not quite so simple:
1. The filibuster and cloture rule
Currently, Senate Rule XXII (22) requires three-fifths of all sworn senators (60 votes) to invoke cloture that is, to cut off debate on most legislation, including Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to fund the government.
This rule is part of the Senate's standing rules, which can only be changed by:
Formally amending the rule, which itself requires two-thirds of senators present and voting (an even higher bar), or
Using the "nuclear option" reinterpreting the rules by simple majority vote.
2. Why not just "pass a new rule"?
Under normal Senate procedure, you cannot simply pass a new rule by majority vote during a session.
Rule V says the Senate's rules continue from one Congress to the next, and changing them formally requires that two-thirds vote.
That said, the Senate has, in practice, reinterpreted its own rules (the "nuclear option") by ruling from the chair, sustained by a simple majority, to effectively change how Rule XXII is applied.
That's how:
Democrats in 2013 lowered the threshold to a simple majority for executive and lower-court nominations.
Republicans in 2017 extended that to Supreme Court nominations.
So yes in theory, Republicans could use the same tactic to declare that cloture on Continuing Resolutions (CRs) or appropriations bills can be invoked by a simple majority.
3. Why they don't (and the risks)
Doing that would be explosive politically and institutionally. It would:
Effectively end the legislative filibuster for spending bills (and possibly invite its end for all legislation).
Remove the minority party's biggest tool of leverage.
Make it much easier for future Democratic majorities to pass large spending packages, Green New Deals, or other partisan legislation.
That's why even many conservative senators (e.g., Mitch McConnell) defend the 60-vote rule it protects the Senate's distinct role as the slower, consensus-forcing chamber.
4. So, short answer:
Could they?
Yes procedurally possible using the "nuclear option."
Would they?
Almost certainly not, because it would blow up Senate norms and remove a key check they rely on when they're in the minority.
Study Newt. He ushered in a combative style and now Trump is that on steroids with a sharp tongue, insatiable ego, and a goal to extract money wherever he can.
Quote:
The "non-negotiation" strategy
After the Republican Revolution of 1994, Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
He viewed bipartisan compromise as a weakness, especially in the context of pushing the Contract with America agenda.
His guidance to Republican members included:
Frame Democrats as the opposition or even the enemy.
Avoid conceding to Democratic proposals, because that would weaken Republican leverage.
Use public messaging and media to pressure Democrats, instead of bargaining privately.
2. Concrete example: the 19951996 government shutdowns
Gingrich and House Republicans refused to negotiate with President Clinton over budget disagreements.
The strategy was: stand firm, force concessions, and appeal to the public.
This led to two federal government shutdowns, and while politically risky, Gingrich believed it strengthened Republican resolve and messaging.
3. Supporting quotes
1. On dealing with opposition:
"The essence of leadership is making people do what they would not do on their own."
Gingrich, often interpreted as urging his party to stand together and resist compromise.
2. On confrontation over negotiation:
"You have to give the press confrontations. When you give them confrontations, you get attention; when you get attention, you can educate."
Newt Gingrich
This reflects his belief that public pressure and visible conflict were more effective than private deal-making.
4. The long-term effect
This "no negotiation" approach set a precedent for future partisan battles, influencing both House and Senate tactics for decades.
Many historians argue it helped normalize legislative obstruction as a tool, which eventually paved the way for tactics like the filibuster of routine appointments and the modern government shutdown brinkmanship.
