Senate Democrats float filibuster carveout for debt ceiling

[mystery-ak]

Senate Democrats float filibuster carveout for debt ceiling
By Jordain Carney - 10/05/21 06:31 PM EDT

Senate Democrats are discussing creating an exemption from the filibuster for the debt ceiling, even as they acknowledge that it’s unclear they have the support in their caucus for such a move.

The idea was brought up during a closed-door caucus lunch on Tuesday, sources confirmed to The Hill, as Democrats try to figure out how to avoid a historic debt default.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who told reporters as recently as Monday that there were not active talks, confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday that Democrats are now discussing a filibuster carveout for the debt ceiling.


“There are discussions,” he told The Hill, asked about the status of potential talks.

Creating such an exemption would take total unity within the 50-member conference and Vice President Harris presiding to break a tie, a bar it’s not clear Democrats could meet.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/575456-senate-democrats-float-filibuster-carve-out-for-debt-ceiling

[Elderberry]

Senate Democrats considering nuking filibuster for debt limit bills

NBC News By Leigh Ann Caldwell, Sahil Kapur, Julie Tsirkin and Rebecca Shabad

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/schumer-warns-u-s-getting-dangerously-close-hitting-debt-ceiling-n1280830

Senate Democrats, looking for a way to raise the debt limit without Republican support, are considering changing the chamber's rules and allowing the debt limit to be increased with a simple majority.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who is one of the strongest supporters of keeping the filibuster, was asked about the potential of changing the rules.

"We're not going to default," he told reporters on Tuesday. "I just know that there's enough people here that will not let this country fall to default."

Separately, McConnell said Tuesday that Democrats have had "plenty of time" to execute the debt ceiling increase and "have chosen not to do it."

"Look, the debt ceiling needs to be addressed. The only question is who should address it," McConnell told reporters, at their weekly news conference. "We laid out a path for two months here, that's easily done. There's plenty of time additionally this month to do the job, and I hope our friends on the other side will step up and take care of it.

[Hoodat]

Any change to the standing Senate rules will require a cloture vote.  The Republicans can filibuster the rule change.

[Elderberry]

Any change to the standing Senate rules will require a cloture vote.  The Republicans can filibuster the rule change.

Not with the "Nuclear Option"

How would eliminating the filibuster actually work?


How would eliminating the filibuster actually work?

The most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster would be to formally change the text of Senate Rule 22, the cloture rule that requires 60 votes to end debate on legislation. Here’s the catch: Ending debate on a resolution to change the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Absent a large, bipartisan Senate majority that favors curtailing the right to debate, a formal change in Rule 22 is extremely unlikely.

A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.

The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.

In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/