Can the Democrats lower the cloture rule?

The Republicans lost quite a few seats in the Senate last night. We all know what else happened; now the question in my mind is can the Prez-elect choose Cabinet members who actually know what they're doing? Hopefully political considerations will take the back-seat to practicality; choose people who know their stuff and who know how to manage. Much as I might like to see the consternation on the Republican side of Al Gore took the Department of Energy seat, I don't think he's the right man for that job. But we'll wait and see.

But back to the Senate. There was a lot of talk about a filibuster-proof majority; that meant the Democrats needed 60 votes so that they could pass cloture votes if legislation was being filibustered by the minority. I did NOT want to see that; I'm virtually certain that the Democrats will see the results as justification for payback time, and want to put the pedal to the medal on some really unpopular and stupid ideas -- like overturning the Defense of Marriage Act -- Obama had better realize how opposed to gay marriage his supporters in the pews of traditional black churches are. There needs to be at least some "checks and balances" operating.

But it has been suggested that the Democratic majority could lower the cloture vote requirement on a majority rules vote at the beginning of the session. Can they do that?

It's not entirely clear. The Senate requires a 2/3 majority (67 votes) to change the rules. But at the beginning of each session, they vote on the rules -- by majority vote. What's not clear is if a new Senate, i.e., a new Congress, can have an entirely new set of rules or if they have to abide by the rules of previous Senates. If the latter is true, then 60 votes for cloture stays. If not -- they could lower it, and then there's no foot on the brake.

Of course, there's also the "nuclear option", bandied about when the Democrats were blocking judicial appointments -- which they weren't really doing a lot of, but nevertheless. Rather than try to go into all of that, here's a discussion of what was being considered WAAAAAY back in 2005, when the Republicans still controlled the Senate:

Nuclear Option Primer

After reading all that, the bottom line is that the Senate would have to do something without precedent, which is not something done lightly. But there could be a lot of momentum for payback, and it depends on the issue that foments the emotions of the far-leftists who think that their time is now, it's time for Change in America, they have overcome, and it's time to fire up the steamrollers and roll, baby, roll. If they were pushed to it, and did it, all that the Republicans would have left would be to simply walk out and refuse to do anything at all. And then we would be on the brink of a civil war; it wasn't like the Obamajority was 75%. It was 52-46% (if you're wondering where the other 2% are, so do I). And about 98% of the 46% are really ticked off this morning and will be standing in line at gun shops before the Senate tries to pass more gun-ownership legislation. Think I'm kidding? Sarah Palin is already being touted as a new leader for the Republican Party; and she can bring down a moose.

I hope it doesn't come to that. But things have definitely changed. Everybody remembers the beginning of the movie "Patton" -- but do you remember the ending?

"For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeteers, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting."

So is power, Democrats. Use it wisely, and remember 1994.