Sentences with phrase «of the filibuster rule»

Not exact matches

Although Paul's filibuster was technically against Brennan's nomination, his remarks focused primarily on civil liberties issues, offering a scathing critique of the Obama's administration's use of unmanned drones, and refusal to rule out military strikes against American citizens on U.S. soil.

Scrapping the filibuster, known in political circles as the «nuclear option,» would require McConnell to wrangle a majority of senators to vote to suspend the rule.

McConnell has batted down Trump's calls to get rid of the filibuster and is known as a stickler for Senate rules.

For one, killing the rule would actually take quite a bit of work and could face the threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

Instead of changing the debate (the role that originally brought him to prominence), he has been trying to craft legislation that can pass the Senate while avoiding the filibuster rule.

to complete the answer to the question, I would add: So, no the filibuster can not be stopped by silencing the minority unless every member of the minority spoke in a way to violate Senate Rule XIX

I would also like to add to @sabbahillel's answer that when the Democrats last controlled the Senate, they changed the Senate rules and eliminated the filibuster on federal judge appointments to make it easier for the Senate to approve the appointments of the Obama administration.

In the U.S. Senate, the filibuster allows a single senator to effectively block a vote by way of the senate rules that allow for unlimited debate, but now, the senate rules have somehow been modified so that to invoke filibuster you don't even need to actually have «debate» where you do silly things like read names from the telephone book to keep the debate going.

Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two - thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate.

In the U.S. Senate, the filibuster allows a single senator to effectively block a vote by way of the senate rules that allow for unlimited debate, but now, the senate rules have somehow been modified...

There are numerous examples of the Senate being able to circumvent the rule directly that requires 60 votes to end a filibuster, and the threat to expand the nuclear option to other areas.

U.S. Senate Republicans deployed the so - called «nuclear option» and changed longstanding rules to clear the way for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, bypassing a precedent - breaking Democratic filibuster by allowing the nomination to go forward on a simple majority vote.

Note that the Democrats forced a rule change in order to prevent a filibuster on certain kinds of votes

There was an order in there titled «To provide for expedited Senate consideration of certain nominations subject to advice and consent», but this did not appear to be the new filibuster rule.

Update: Rules of enragement: the filibuster and Senate reform (Grist creates an information center).

The future makeup of the court depends upon imponderables like the outcome of presidential elections and the makeup of the Senate (and its filibuster rules, as we saw last week).

Gillibrand also reiterated Schumer's warning against using the so - called «nuclear option» to ram Gorsuch's confirmation through — that is, changing Senate rules to block use of the filibuster.

Congress also uses modifications of straight Robert's Rules voting like the filibuster, holds, Senatorial privilege for judicial appointments, supermajority voting on treaties, «fast track voting» without amendments and similar variants.

Is there any rule preventing senators from simply walking out of a filibuster (or taking out a sleeping bag)?

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, argued on Thursday that the core of Mr. MacArthur's amendment would violate the budget rules that Republicans must follow in order to sidestep a Democratic filibuster.

Though rules don't permit a tactic like Murphy's filibuster, Rep. Jim Himes made waves when he and some Democratic colleagues, including Reps. Joe Courtney and John Larson walked off the floor of the House during a moment of silence for the 49 men and women who were slain in an Orlando nightclub.

In a 51 - 48 vote, the Senate prohibited any motion to waive the rules after a filibuster is defeated, [21][22][23] although this change did not affect the ultimate ability of a 41 - vote minority to block final action via an initial filibuster.

And amid a frosty period in his relationship with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, Mr. Trump questioned the Senate leader's approach, faulting Republicans for failing to blow up longstanding Senate rules that make most legislation subject to a filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome.

[8][9][10] The metaphor of a nuclear strike refers to the majority party unilaterally imposing a change to the filibuster rule, which might provoke retaliation by the minority party.

But he pointed hopefully to the power of the 48 - member Senate Democratic Caucus headed by Sen. Charles Schumer, who have enough votes under the current rules to filibuster most Republican legislation.

If the GOP / Teatrolls want to agree to rules that define when filibusters for nominees will be allowed, instead of just removal of the filibuster for nominees altogether, I'm pretty sure Reid would negotiate.

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved the most fundamental alteration of its rules in more than a generation on Thursday, ending the minority party's ability to filibuster most presidential nominees in response to the partisan gridlock that has plagued Congress for much of the Obama administration.

Republicans reign in both wings of the Capitol, although Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer «s 48 - member Democratic caucus has enough votes filibuster most legislation under current Senate rules.

Of course, under the Senate's arcane rules about a member's right to filibuster any pending legislation, that still means getting 60 votes.

Most EPA rules have a layer of insulation from Congressional meddling as long as Senate Democrats retain the ability to filibuster legislation that would repeal bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Air Act.

An informal Senate agreement on the rules of filibusters has the potential to accelerate confirmations of federal district court judges.

Of course, in light of the current composition of the U.S. Senate and the current President, and the precedent that the «nuclear option» can abolish the filibuster for some kinds of judicial appointments (a parliamentary ruling which is almost surely not justiciable due to express language vesting procedural questions in the U.S. Senate in the Senate and not the courts in the U.S. Constitution), this question is unlikely to present itself any time sooOf course, in light of the current composition of the U.S. Senate and the current President, and the precedent that the «nuclear option» can abolish the filibuster for some kinds of judicial appointments (a parliamentary ruling which is almost surely not justiciable due to express language vesting procedural questions in the U.S. Senate in the Senate and not the courts in the U.S. Constitution), this question is unlikely to present itself any time sooof the current composition of the U.S. Senate and the current President, and the precedent that the «nuclear option» can abolish the filibuster for some kinds of judicial appointments (a parliamentary ruling which is almost surely not justiciable due to express language vesting procedural questions in the U.S. Senate in the Senate and not the courts in the U.S. Constitution), this question is unlikely to present itself any time sooof the U.S. Senate and the current President, and the precedent that the «nuclear option» can abolish the filibuster for some kinds of judicial appointments (a parliamentary ruling which is almost surely not justiciable due to express language vesting procedural questions in the U.S. Senate in the Senate and not the courts in the U.S. Constitution), this question is unlikely to present itself any time sooof judicial appointments (a parliamentary ruling which is almost surely not justiciable due to express language vesting procedural questions in the U.S. Senate in the Senate and not the courts in the U.S. Constitution), this question is unlikely to present itself any time soon.