The GOP’s Filibuster Freak-Out: 13 Dramatic Reactions From Senate Republicans

Apparently, Congress returning to normal operations is akin to spitting on the Founding Fathers. Also, Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare.

Rand Paul: David Becker/ZUMA; John McCain: Will Seberger/ZUMA; Mitch McConnell: Ron Sachs/ZUMA; David Vitter: Erik Lesser/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Senate Democrats upended the chamber’s normal procedure Thursday morning, restoring a sense of normalcy to the oft-dysfunctional institution by changing the filibuster rules for confirming judicial and executive-branch nominees. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) turned to the so-called “nuclear option”—a parliamentary trick to write the rules with just 51 votes, rather than the standard two-thirds majority required to change Senate procedures. Clearing a filibuster on those appointees will no longer take a 60-vote supermajority, and President Barack Obama’s judges and White House staff can now be approved by a simple up-or-down vote.

It’s not an outrageous concept. Senate rules were changed regularly under these basic-majority votes when the late Robert Byrd of West Virginia was majority leader in the 1970s. Yet on Thursday, Republicans acted as if the world had ended and democracy would soon collapse thanks to Reid’s egregious change of the rules. It’s hard to take their doom-and-gloom predictions too seriously. Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, were amped to end filibusters of judicial nominations in 2005 until Democrats caved and cut a deal.

Here’s a sample of the some of the most hyperbolic Republican reactions to filibuster reform:

1. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on the Senate floor:

“He [Harry Reid] is not a dictator. He does not have the power to dictate how this Senate operates.”

2. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.):

 

3. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on CNN:

“What we really need is an anti-bullying ordinance in the Senate. I mean, now we’ve got a big bully. Harry Reid says he’s just gonna break the rules and make new rules.”

4. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.):

“They’re governed by the newer members…who have never been in a minority, who are primarily driving this issue. They succeeded and they will pay a very, very heavy price for it.”

5. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.):

 

6. Sen. Alexander, again, this time on the floor of the Senate:

“This action today creates a perpetual opportunity for the tyranny of the majority because it permits a majority in this body to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it. This should be called Obamacare II, because it is another example of the use of raw partisan political party for the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it.”

7. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) on his Facebook page:

“Rather than fix the Obamacare disaster, today Harry Reid doubled down on the brass knuckles partisan power politics that produced it—jam it through, no compromise, unilaterally make up new rules whenever needed. This isn’t just a shame for the Senate; it’s scary and dictatorial for our country.”

8. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.):

 

9. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) right before the nuclear-option vote:

“Just yesterday, I saw a story about a guy getting a letter in the mail saying his dog, his dog had qualified for insurance under Obamacare. So yeah, I would probably be running for the exit, too, if I had supported this law. I would be looking to change the subject, change the subject just as Senate Democrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations.”

10. Sen. Dan Coates (R-Ind.) on his Facebook page:

“This action to change the Senate rules and weaken the Founding Fathers’ vision for checks and balances is yet another disturbing power grab and reminds the public of how the Democrats jammed through the unwanted health care law.”

11. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.):

“The Democrats’ vote to invoke the ‘nuclear option’ and fundamentally change the rules of the Senate is a raw power grab which is deeply disappointing. Like the manner in which they rammed through Obamacare on party line votes, they have now broken the rules of the Senate to allow them to do the same for the president’s executive and judicial nominees.”

12. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.):

 

13. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):

“The silver lining is that there will come a day when roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for Supreme Court.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate