this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
66 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
14098 readers
703 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"a new rule that allows the Senate to confirm an unlimited number of nominees en bloc, rather than process each one individually." what does this have to do with the filibuster
It doesn't, but the media is too uncreative to come up with a new moniker for allowing batch action on nominees, so they reused "nuclear option" even though that was previously about the filibuster.
When you think about it for a second, saying “nuclear option” to discuss the actions of the government in charge of the worlds largest arsenal of planet-ending nuclear weapons is a hell of a phrase to just use casually like this.
It's was also about appointments, happened in 2016 when repubs were refusing to confirm Obama's cebtrist judges
The nuclear option is changing senate rules by simple majority, as opposed to the three fifths majority usually required by the senate rules
Usually discussed in relation to the theoretical filibuster (I don't think half of them would survive trying to actually filibuster something), but not exclusively
What the hell is a theoretical filibuster
you know how filibustering is giving a long speech to slow down congress? for a long time now, they've considered the threat "i'm going to filibuster" to be equivalent to actually doing so, and thus cloture, the vote to end discussion, which requires 60 votes, became a sort of theoretical filibuster. instead of an actual filibustering tactic, it became "you need 60 votes now" without the actual speaking. liberals, man.
These ghouls would drop like flies if they actually had to stand and speak for that long. Let alone have to actually hold an idea to be able to speak to it