Sen. Harkin: Hey, let's expand this nuclear option thing to legislation, too

Via The Hill:

After the Senate voted to change filibuster rules Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for more reforms.

“This has been escalating for a long period of time and it was time to stop it and that’s what we did this morning,” Harkin said. “Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”

Fifty-two Democratic senators voted to limit the minority party’s right to filibuster executive branch and judicial nominees. Under the old rules, 60 votes were necessary to end debate on nominees, but Democrats changed the rules to require a simple majority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was prompted to use the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules with a simple majority after Republicans blocked three of President Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court.

The nuclear option — which gets its name from the damage done to bipartisan relationships — allows a simple-majority to change the Senate rules rather than the usual super majority.

Republicans accused Democrats of being shortsighted by “breaking the rules to change the rules.”

“This is a blatant power grab,” Sen. Chuck Grassley said. “This is about the other side not getting everything they want when they want it.”

Harkin said it was a “good day” for the Senate and called for more reforms.

Move along here, no naked power grabs to see …

formwiz says:

November 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Give those morons just a little time and the repeal of Choomcare will be very doable.

Drew the Infidel says:

November 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm

The commiecrats quote a bogus statistic about 58 judicial nominations being blocked in the history of this nation and 20 have occurred under Obhammud. That is more a reflection of the obscure bubble-headed know-nothings he plucks from college classrooms and nominates for critical positions than it is a singling out of him personally. Just who does he think he is with his puffed-up self-importance?

This will now be a case of “what goes around comes around” or a never-ending feud a la the Hatfields and McCoys. Just think, 51 votes and Obhammudcare is history.

Carlos says:

November 22, 2013 at 10:26 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the socialists/elitists/etc. (dummies as a group) the ones always whining about stare decisis?

Yes, I know this has “nothing” to do with “legal precedent,” but it does have to do with the law (or the making thereof) and it does have over two hundred years of precedent.

Where’s all that concern over “precedent” now? Hmmmm?

This is the most blatant example known to the general public of what a sleaze bucket Slimeball (he’s not just “Dingy” anymore) Harry really is. With any luck enough people in the state of Nevada will be fed up with him enough to offset all the criminal alien vote fostered by SEIU in Vegas and Reno now.

Tom says:

November 23, 2013 at 1:41 pm

What Harkin, and other Dem Senators really wanted was the talking filibuster. A REAL, actual filibuster requiring Senator(s) to hold the floor. This is the rule that should have been changed, not the 60 vote threshold. As Harkin stated on the Senate floor “…Senators would have to actually make arguments, debate, and deliberate. Senators would have to obstruct in public, and be held accountable for that obstructionism.” No more holding up confirmations and legislation discreetly by one – just one Senator. That allows too much power to one Senator.

Obviously both Democratic and Republican Senators used (abused?) this rule increasingly over time. Any objective view of the data would show that in each Congress it has been used more than in the previous Congress. So if it was left in place (with Republicans likely controlling the Senate in 2014), it is safe to assume that the new Congress would use the filibuster even more than the previous Congress. At some point- nothing gets done. By either party. If you like the status quo, that’s good news. Most of the American electorate does not like the status quo.