Difference between revisions of "Senate rules change"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→See also: add another link to analysis) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
*[http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/26/it-could-be-close-counting-to-51-on-the-nuclear-option/ Daily Caller - "It Could Be Close ...."] | *[http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/26/it-could-be-close-counting-to-51-on-the-nuclear-option/ Daily Caller - "It Could Be Close ...."] | ||
| + | *[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republican-support-for-nuclear-option-for-gorsuch-builds-in-senate/article/2618824 Analysis of Republican Senators on rules change] | ||
[[category:politics]] | [[category:politics]] | ||
Revision as of 22:32, April 2, 2017
The Senate rules change, also called the "nuclear option," would eliminate the filibuster in the U.S. Senate for confirming nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell has promised to do this if, as expected, the Democrats successfully filibuster nominee Neil Gorsuch in early April 2017.
Republicans need 50 votes to accomplish the rules change, assuming Vice-President Mike Pence breaks the tie in favor of changing the rules. This means the Republicans lose no more than two Republicans on this issue. Doubtful Republican votes with respect to changing the rules include:
Most likely to vote "no" on rules change
- Susan Collins of Maine (member of prior "Gang of 14" that averted a rules change)
- Dean Heller of Nevada, up for reelection in a state won easily by Hillary Clinton
- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Possibly "no" on rules change
- John McCain of Arizona (member of prior "gang of 14" that averted a rules change)
- Orrin Hatch of Utah
- Jeff Flake of Arizona
Outside possibility of "no" or absence
- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (member of prior "gang of 14: that averted a rules change)
- Rand Paul of Kentucky
- Johnny Isakson of Georgia (recovering from back surgery, so an absence or delay is possible)
(add to list)