Daisy Ad 2013: Senate Filibuster Nuclear Option Remix


What a difference eight years and a Senate majority makes. Back in 2005, Senate Democrats (including Barack Obama) were in the minority - and dead-set against a Republican plan to allow judicial nominations to proceed to an up-or-down vote based on a simple majority. The so-called nuclear option, warned Obama and others, would have the Founders spinning in their graves and usher in a tyranny of the majority in the world's greatest deliberative body.

But now, faced with a truculent Republican Senate minority, the Democrats done just that, effectively overturning 200 years of precedent. For more on what it all means, read https://reason.com/blog/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-go-nuclear-vote-down-pa

Approx. 50 seconds. 

NEXT: FDA vs Modern Medicine: Q/A w Peter Huber

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The party out of power changes its tune 180 degrees after getting into power? Who could have seen this coming? Who, I ask? Who has the power of precognition? Is it Hugh?

    1. I thought Hugh's power was pre-cock-insertions. Or was that Warty?

      1. Definitely Warty. He does have a timesuit, after all. What good is having one if you can't do pre-cock-insertions?

        1. Why are engaging in sophomoric humor? What does it get you?

    2. Yes they do, but there's a clear distinction here. Team Blue actually did it.

    3. my classmate's step-sister makes $83/hr on the computer. She has been fired for nine months but last month her payment was $14664 just working on the computer for a few hours. go.....W?W?W.D?U?B?3?0.C?O?M

  2. "They called me old-fashioned for teaching the duck and cover method, but who's laughing now!"

  3. ... Place head firmly between knees and KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE!

  4. Yes, the hypocritical turnabout by Democrats is astounding but government has gotten completely dysfunctional.

    For instance, the Fed Chair full vote is being held up by Lindy Graham - until she gets over her Benghazi temper tantrum. Which has nothing to do with whether Yellen is qualified or not. The same thing has been going on with other key appointments.

    1. the [name of federal gummint appointed position] full vote is being held up by [name of Senator from either or neither party]

      I know, right?! It's like this has NEVER happened before, EVAR! Those Rethugs need to get off it and put "the nation's" interest first. Just like the Senate did around, ohhhh, 1861, 1862...when it was WAY less "nuclear" than it is now!


      1. I do think the filibuster is being overused. The Graham threat is one example, but a worse one is the one that led to this vote today: voting against a bunch of nominees for Circuit Court positions on the grounds that other Circuit Court positions should be placed first. I will grant that such matters were not what the filibuster was intended for and historically was not used for.

        1. I do think the filibuster is being overused.

          It's really not.

          1. It really is. Richard Taranto is the case in point. Nominated for a position as a federal judge, and then was filibustered constantly for close to 2 years. Did he lack credentials for the position? Was he too liberal to the extreme? Guess not.

            He was finally passed after nearly 2 years of obstruction with over 90 votes. No one, including Republicans, voted against him.

            So much for the filibuster being used properly, but instead being used as a political tool.

        2. But at least now we can have the NLRB fully staffed so we can prevent Boeing from picking on those angelic union workers in Washington.

      2. As embarrassing as it gets for his TEAM he's still here, day after day, fighting the good fight, for Barack and country.

        I glance down at your fecal covered surface, your bright blue eyes and winning smile and say kudos shreeky....you've earned your "Real Man of Genius" award.

      3. There were ZERO filibusters of executive nominees from 1952- 1977.

        None for Bush 41.

        Nine for Clinton then seven for Dumbya and now over 20 for Obama.

        It is not "just like it always was" you buffoon. But just go ahead and tell yourself that.

        1. I thought you were a capitalist/political agnostic secularist? Not a TEAM BLUE flag waving suck up with a wikipedia fetish?

          C'mon shreek stick with something...I'm getting dizzy!

          1. I thought you were a capitalist/political agnostic secularist?

            Correct. I support the Obama judicial nominees because I don't want a bunch of Fundie-Nut Aborto-Freaks on the DC Circuit.

            That is this issue congealed.

            1. MY TEAM GUD UR TEEM BAD /shriektard

            2. Fundie-Nut Aborto-Freaks

              Ooooh great band name shreeky when do you guys go on tour?!


            3. Actually, I would think f your concern is about 'fundie' Circuit Court justices then you really should agree with the Republican position, since the Western circuits they want staffed first would be more likely to deal with abortion and other social laws than the DC Circuit (which tends to deal with administrative issues), and they would impact a much larger area (the DC Circuit has the smallest geographic jurisdiction).

              1. That is logical, however the DC Circuit tends to serve as the farm team for SCOTUS appointments.

                A judgeship on the D.C. Circuit is often thought of as a stepping-stone for appointment to the Supreme Court. As of January 2013, four of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are alumni of the D.C. Circuit:Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan was nominated to the same seat that Roberts would later fill by Bill Clinton, but was never given a vote in the Senate. In addition, the Reagan Administration put forth two failed nominees in 1987 from the D.C. Circuit: former Judge Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and former (2001?2008) Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg (no relation to Ruth Bader Ginsburg), who withdrew his nomination after it became known that he had used marijuana as a college student and professor in the 1960s and 1970s. Wikipedia

                I consider these types (SoCons) to be the biggest threat to liberty extant.

                Now, truth be told, time is gaining on me. I have had this same position since college but maybe I wouldn't benefit from my radical liberal social positions like I once could have.

                1. Right. Good thing there's absolutely no threat to economic freedom. Just as long as you can wave your dick around any way you want everything is peachy. You truly are a very special kind of shit. The kind that smells so sweet to its owners nostrils that the fumigation it causes to the rest of the world is completely irrelevant.

                  1. My economic freedom is constrained by $3.5 trillion spending and the taxes to support such - in which there is literally no difference between the two major parties.

                    If anything, Dems spend less while there is a D POTUS. The biggest spending increases are with GOP presidents.

                    1. Tell that to my aching GDP. Barry broke all records for a post-war president on spending and he cried that whole time that he couldn't spend even MORE. Team Blue created the entitlement state so that train to hell is painted a very bright sky color. But it's true that Team Red didn't dismantle it. But it's also true that Bush II (not that I care to defend his spending record) got crucified when he proposed to even try tweaking it. Hey, just keep on believing that Team Blue will be responsible with the purse strings.


                      Oh, and it's good that you fail to recognize all the lovely regulatory burden that Barry is using to "help" our economic freedom.

                      Good job, Barry. Wanna play with my dick? It's the only thing that matters!

                    2. Barry broke all records for a post-war president on spending

                      A total fucking lie.

                      Spending has remained FLAT under Obama at $3.5 trillion per year.

                      Spending INCREASED 70% under Dumbya ($1.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion).

                      In case you are so fucking retarded you need to know this - spending never goes down - FLAT is as good as it gets.

                    3. Dumbass, spending increase is not the same as spending. I know counting is really hard for the Left (One, Two, Many, Mine) but try to keep up. I said spending, fucknut.


                      Gee, lookee here. Barry shows a hugeass spike in spending as %GDP. The fact that he was denied an even bigger spike is just pure tragedy. And, since you are so fucking retarded, you'll note that spending as a %of GDP actually CAN go down. And guess what? If it does that then we can actually run a fiscally sound ship. But you just keep pulling on your dick and imagining the ponies.

                    4. And I would add that Barry started off with TARP spending as the baseline, i.e. temporary spending, but he's sure done a great job of making that temporary spending permanent.

                    5. Spending INCREASED 70% under Dumbya ($1.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion).

                      That crazy Bush.

                      Signing 800 billion dollar stimulus bills after he leaves office.

                2. Give me a break, SoCons are always under constant surveillance by almost every faction of the media save maybe the most right wing.

                  Progressives are the main threat to liberty. Its right there in their fucked up political philosophy: No axiomatic principles allowed in gov, rule by expert, etc. Progs are the most illiberal bunch of douche bags this side of Il Duce. Control freaks to the core whose only constant ideology is Power, Moar Power. Fuck them.

          2. By the way, Millett is nominated to replace John Roberts on the DC Circuit. That is how long this seat has been open.

        2. Well, it was the Democrats that first used the filibuster to prevent a judicial nominee from joining the court to which they were nominated (Estrada).

          1. Yes, my first sentence above concerned the Dem hypocrites. Estrada never went to vote.

          2. those racists basterds

        3. Yeah pick those cherries good and hard!

        4. Perhaps those statistics just prove he's a far left radical appointing people like Van Jones to positions based upon their ideology and not their credentials, or lack thereof.

      4. You mock, but it's for the Childrenz.

    2. Sorry, but,,,,Lindy Graham. Who is "she"?

      Also, this.

      1. I think it's that fat woman who writes "humor" columns for Jezebel.

      2. Also, this.

        That's Larry Summers...he has something to do with banking.

    3. Riddle me this.

      Why bother having a confirmation at all if the party in power expects a rubber stamp?

      Seems to me whenever Democrats can't get their policies/confirmations rubber stamped with little fan fare they cry obstructionism.

      Which brings up the bigger issue. If you demand the other party have the same exact views why bother having more than one party whatsoever?

      1. -Why bother having a confirmation at all if the party in power expects a rubber stamp?

        I agree with that, but the situation that brought on the change today was one where they had a hearing on this Millet lady and the Republicans who ended up filibustering complimented her and told her she was well qualified and such, but they could not confirm her and two others because they wanted to see other judicial vacancies filled first. That is on the other end of the spectrum from rubber stamping a nominee, they were not even voting based on he nominee at all.

        1. That is a fair point.

        2. Why do we even need judges, Bo? After all you still favor arbitrary law enforcement and use of executive power. That means we don't need judges or legislating bodies. Now we just need the proper title... I'm still partial to The Dude.

    4. Yes, the hypocritical turnabout by Democrats is astounding but government has gotten completely dysfunctional.

      Translation: The Democrats did something wrong, but it's really the Republican's fault.

      1. When you look at the graphic of the time it takes for judicial an cabinet nominations to come to a vote it is clear that the Republicans are way out of control.

        The Democrats limited the change to something they think they can live with when they are the minority, but if the Republicans are willing to abuse their minority powers they certainly will abuse their majority powers.

        This was a short sighted move that will lead to even more dis function.

        1. And it will be delicious.

          1. No it won't. It will be the Democrats and Republicans putting their concerns before the concerns of the people they are suppose to represent. Why couldn't the Republicans use the filibuster responsibly and why couldn't the Democrats be reasonable? Making Republicans actually be there for a filibuster should have been their response not doing away with it for cabinet and non supreme court judicial nominees.

    5. Lindsey Graham is a man. What do you gain by calling him a woman?

    6. Hypocritical seems insufficient for what this is. This tactic (filibustering judges and others, rather than legislation) was invented what, maybe 10 years ago...by the people who just nuked the filibuster of those same people.

      Of course, they do realize, right, that they're not kidding anybody. We all know if a Supreme Court nomination comes up and the Repubs object, they will just nuke that filibuster too. And equally as predictable, the Repubs won't even consider not nuking it if it comes up in their session.

      The basic character of the Senate just changed, and it can no longer be called "the greatest deliberative body in the world". Not nearly as much need to deliberate anymore.

      But if the Repubs mean what they say and have any guts, then libertarians REJOICE. Because when we next have a Repub Pres, House and senate, in theory a single bill of less than a page can pass with 50%+1 that can get rid of ObamaCare plus an entire handful of expensive and wasteful agencies and programs. Handful? ALL of them, if we could just get the flavor of Repubs that were budget hounds instead of security hounds. Heck, in theory we could even get rid of Homeland Security, if we could just pound into these fools the proper sense of perspective of the terrorism threat.

      And we could keep these things away. Because they take a LOT more to build than they do to nuke, now. This could be a blessing in disguise.

  5. In the discussion on this news earlier today many of us were saying what were the Democrats thinking to do this on what will likely be a GOP Senate next year? Were they just being foolishly shortsighted? Personally insulted?

    Well, it dawned on me looking at the massive headlines this is getting at the Washington Post and New York Times that perhaps they did it to simply change the conversation away from the disaster that is the ACA rollout.

    Good luck to them on that of course, I find it unlikely that many people are more concerned about a change in an arcane Senate procedure than about hearing their insurance has been cancelled, waiting hours to get through on the website and being notified of rate increases.

    1. Ah - so you listened to Rush Limbaugh's show today, too.

      1. Ironically, today I did not. I listen on MWF on the way to class, but not TTH. Did he say as much?

    2. I believe they also stipulated that this was a temporary newclear move. One that can easily be undone the moment they lose Senate control but before they vacate the seats.

      That way they can scream and cry Booosh Booosh if the Republicans make the same move.

  6. Lindy Graham? Who is "she"?

    1. Slip of the tongue most probably. That's actually Buttwipe's stage name when he performs in drag.

  7. Wait - I'll be it's TFT and I responded, didn't I? My apologies, Reasonoids! Please forgive me!

    Carry on.

  8. Strategically was this really a good move? If the Repubs take the Senate in '14 and/or the presidency in '16 then they'll have control. Seems poorly thought through.

    1. Seems poorly thought through.

      Politicians Lady B....they're politicians....

    2. Ooooh maybe the evil party wants to be the stupid party too.

    3. I'm thinking the Koch brothers must have bribed Senator Reid.

    4. No they stipulated it was only temporary.

  9. Ooooh maybe the evil party wants to be the stupid party too.

    This great union produced the "Idiocratic Party"!

  10. That girl is cute, Id hit that!


    1. I'd go nuclear on it.

  11. It's not often I LOL at anon-bot; that was great.

  12. Not wanting to make Paul Ryan's error, I being my quote of Fredrich Hayek quoting Webster's comparative study of state constitutions:
    ""Under most of the revolutionary constitutions the legislature was truly omnipotent...In six constitutions there was nothing whatever to prevent the legislature amending the constitution by ordinary legislative process."

    [Hayek goes on to annotate the text with Thomas Jefferson:]...
    "The concentrating these [powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary... The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government.

    It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice." "

  13. Reading the comments section here is as dysfunctional as our government. It's as if a good portion of you are trying to prove your libertarianess by commenting in crypto-speak. And we wonder why we can't win more elections. Jesus.

  14. Sometimes rules are made with the hope that they will be used rationally. This country has perked along quite fine with limited use of the filibuster because everyone used it to protect the minority from extreme views of the majority. That is it.

    The current President has had more nominees filibustered than the last 10 Presidents combined. From Eisenhower to Reagan there were almost none. Then many more when Clinton was President, even more when W. was President, and then an outlandish increase when Obama was President.

    Does anyone really think that the Democrats won't use it even more when the next Republican is elected? And then we will have even more dysfunction in Washington.

    It had to change. We used to have a variety of veto capabilities between the President, and even in some cases the House and the Senate. The filibuster had then provided a 4th...the minority in the Senate. Sadly, adults just could not act like adults anymore.

  15. The Republicans should announce their response. When they're again the ones in charge of the Senate, they will do precisely the same thing and do so for precisely the same number of nominations that the Democrats apply this new rule to.

    Or perhaps, the same number plus some other number. Punishment should involve escalation.

    1. Of course they should...and they will. So what? The trend line of filibuster use since Clinton has been steep, and getting close to the theater of the absurd. It was time to change.

  16. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

    I think the House of Representatives should pass a bill abolishing all Federal Courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and send it to the Senate where Harry Reid would throw it in the trash. Of course, if there were a Republican majority in 2015, and no filibuster ....

  17. For all the sickening crap in politics, one of the most disgusting is the hypocrisy.
    None of them have any principles or morals; they just do whatever servers their immediate interests.
    Furthermore, they're apparently to dimwitted even to see how a political advantage now could be used against them in the future.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.