Replies

"Then, Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as "reconciliation," a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with"

For what it is worth, "reconciliation" is not the nuclear option. They are two entirely different parliamentarian procedures.

Reconciliation is specifically spelled out in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It is limited to bills that deal only with certain budget considerations. It is unlikely, because of the sweeping nature of this health care bill, that the Senate parliamentarians would allow budget reconciliation to be used on this bill.

However, that wouldn't theoretically keep the Dems from actually doing away with, even if only temporarily, the filibuster. This can be done using parliamentarian maneuvers and it is what is known as "the nuclear option". If they did this, it would change the complexion of the Senate for a generation, if not longer. The acrimony and hostility in the Senate, would quickly mirror what you have in the House, which is precisely NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

I think that such a maneuver would be political suicide for the Dems, and I suspect that there are enough Dem Senators who would realize it. I'm not sure that they could actually get 51 votes using the nuclear option.

I think these people are so out of touch with us, they are going to do it... They will just “double down” (as Rush says)

And none of them care a bit about our Founding Fathers..That is why they have to go.

I'm not sure that they could actually get 51 votes using the nuclear option.

In 1967, when there were 68 Democrats and 20 RINOs in the Senate, VP Humphrey tried to use the nuclear option, and even with LBJ and HHH working full-time, they could not get 51 votes.

A US Senator is the most powerful legislator in the world, precisely because of the filibuster. Any Senator who votes for a nuclear option is reducing his own personal power, permanently.