Right, and those are pretty different – the latter were effectively permanent changes that were compromises negotiated to fall short of full “repeal” of the filibuster. (Or, the first was a compromise, then McConnell bullied ahead with the second.) The question is about the former – can the rules be changed for a single piece of legislation? It seems like all the rule changes over the years regarding the filibuster carried forward. Are you aware of an instance in which the minority signaled a filibuster of a bill and the majority did a little procedural magic that enabled them to pass the bill on a simple majority vote, and it either did not apply for subsequent legislation or was immediately changed back? I’m skeptical, because I’d understood that the arcane quirk that was figured out to enable the “nuclear option” would not lend itself to that kind of agility. Once it was invoked for judicial noms it was no longer in effect for those types of votes, and seems unlikely to be restored.
You are hung up, I think, on a distinction without a difference. Once again, the Senate’s rules are what the Senate makes them.
There is absolutely no reason why a point of order could not be raised to override the 60-vote cloture requirement for a single piece of legislation any more than to override it forever.
The wikipedia article on the nuclear option does a pretty good job of setting out both the mechanics and the history, with ample citations and references. If you haven’t already done so, I recommend giving it a look.
Sounds easy. So why hasn’t it happened? Why, to use just one example, did the ACA have to be restructured to be enacted via reconciliation once the Dems lost their filibuster-proof majority?
I think you may be underestimating the significance of the mechanism of the cloture vote rule change and how it “establishes a new precedent”. I’ve referred to that Wikipedia page more than once in the past (and lived through the Harry Reid era). Note the section about the procedure of invoking the “nuclear option” and the oddly specific steps involved and how it “effectively eliminat[es] the 60-vote barrier going forward.” That was specifically about how it was invoked for judicial nominees but I believe it was invoked that way because it had to be.
Yes the Senate’s rules are what they make them, but they make them at the beginning of a session, not during one. I don’t think this is as simple as you’re making it. (Deleted a bunch of stuff about congressional rules; too in-the-weeds and probably inaccurate.)
Sinema and Manchin.
Actually, let me amend that, since you’re probably asking “why don’t we routinely see this procedure invoked for specific blockages”. So institutionally, getting in the habit of overturning the rules case-by-case in case after case becomes the same thing as just ditching the rule outright, only with a lot more fuss and bother. And Senators do, as a group, tend to care about their institution. So I suspect that there’s almost as much reluctance to override the 60-vote cloture requirement “just this once” as there is to abandon it altogether, because it is, probably correctly, seen as a slippery slope.
So, Sinema and Manchin.
That’s not what I mean. Now it’s those two, but for the ACA they were 59-41. Find a piece of legislation that was passed by overcoming filibuster rules on that bill only. If it was easy it would have happened.
Here’s some good reading on it; quite dense but illustrates the arcane difficulty in changing Senate rules by simple majority. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32684.html
That’s possibly true, but why don’t you see any commentary ever urging that option for a specific bill? Could just be institutional but I suspect it’s the way the point of order is necessarily invoked that it cannot be that specific, or that once the precedent for a bill vote is set then it will be used subsequently, not as a slippery slope but simply by citation. Either way there are real reasons why it hasn’t happened that can’t be glossed over.
I wouldn’t say “routinely” I’d say “ever”. Sorry, I don’t mean to shift the google challenge to you, but I can’t find any instance of this ever happening. As far as I know it’s basically been used twice, for judicial and then SCOTUS, and those precedents persist.
ps: damn “thunderclapnewman” for getting me into this with a patronizing remark 
I missed this comment earlier. Most people actually call it “being a dick”. And, “being wrong”.
Those weren’t one-offs, they were rule changes that persist today.
Which means that a change to pass S1 would be a more narrow exception than what Reid and McConnell did last decade.
They permanently ended filibusters on types of Senate work. I’m not sure you could do the same on a specific bill, whether for technical or political reasons as discussed above. I think it’s effectively a one-way street.
I guess I should ask, have you seen any political writer suggesting this as an option or urging the Dems to go this way? I don’t think it’s a thing.
I think you can do anything if you have 51 votes on the floor to back up the majority leader when the motion to make the rule change is challenged.
But not changing the rules for a single bill. Here’s a good summary. Filibuster rules change a lot. They always apply to legislation down the road. https://www.vox.com/22260164/filibuster-senate-fix-reform-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-cloture-mitch-mcconnell
Because a simple majority is all that is necessary to effectively change the Senate’s rules, senators could create any carveout they want to the filibuster. They could exempt any legislation that is co-sponsored by a certain number of senators, for example. They could exempt legislation that touches on certain subjects. They could even exempt any legislation whose title begins with the letter “J,” if that’s what a majority wants to do.
You’d think with some creativity they could do what you’re suggesting. But implications are so broad that there’s almost no chance of it happening.
So just to get back to this, no it can’t be and I believe hasn’t been overridden for a specific piece of legislation, but rule changes can be tailored to approximate that effect.
It can be done. Robert Byrd went nuclear 4x when he needed to get something done. All it takes is 51 votes. The quotes you provided indicate it can be done. It’s just that people think about the implications and in a mutually assured destruction sort of way so they don’t do it. That changed under McConnell. Besides, it would be easy enough for Schumer to craft a motion to say that all measures involving voting rights will be subject to 51 votes. It’s an academic debate. There’s little doubt that the majority can change the rules if they have 51 votes to back up a motion.
Right, no one disagrees with this. The question is about un-filibustering a single piece of legislation.
Exactly. This is why what you suggest at the top of the comments won’t happen, and it’s not about Joe Manchin. There is very likely not unanimity among Dem Senators on killing the filibuster entirely, which is the effective result and why all discussion on the topic revolves around ending it.
ETA: By the way, here’s an article on those Byrd rule changes. All the Byrd actions were rule changes that he intended to be persistent. Apparently this article was pretty influential at the time in getting people to think about using these methods more often to overcome filibusters.
I think there’s a difference between what can technically happen vs what Senators are likely to do. I think the gap between the two has narrowed significantly. Imho, the filibuster is already dead for GOP priorities. There won’t be another GOP legislative aim for which the filibuster will be an obstacle. If they really want to do something, the filibuster will not stand in the way. All you have to do is envision a law that the GOP might want to pass. Perhaps, they would like to pass a federal law banning abortion after the first trimester. If their donors and voters want it, McConnell, if he has a majority, will not let the filibuster stand in the way of getting it passed. I think that’s just a fact. Everyone knows if Mitch wants something, he’s going to get it done, rules, blowback, tradition be damned.
The Dems are getting closer to that point. If Schumer had put a motion on the floor to change the 60 vote requirement to 51 for S1 and/or JLRVAA either as stand alone moves or as a broader rule on ‘voting rights’ it would’ve gotten 48 votes. The filibuster will effectively be dead as an ultimate obstacle to the majority party by 2023 or 2025. By 2023, it’s possible that the Dems add at least 2 seats or the GOP takes over. In that instance, the votes of Manchin/Sinema are irrelevant. If Mitch wins, he’ll use the 2022-2024 period to push through a lot of messaging bills. He may waive the filibuster if he wants to embarrass Biden to force him to veto something. If the Dems get to 52 seats, Manchin/Sinema become irrelevant and you can be damn sure that the Congressional Black Caucus will demand S1 be passed. It will get done. Manchin/Sinema have leverage so long as the Dems have 50 or 51 seats.
Let me ask you. Have you seen anyone anywhere urging the Dems to pass this or any bill using a “this bill only” nuclear option?
Clyburn has been pushing this very option, as have many Dems.
So this is where I keep getting hung up in your argument. I’ve not been able to find any part in the actual text of the rules that says, in effect, “keepsies only”. What is there in the rules that would prohibit someone from saying, for example, “I raise a point of order that, without establishing any precedent for other legislation, the vote on cloture under Rule XXII for SB.1 is by majority vote”? I’ve got nothing.
I suspect that what you’re saying is “no it hasn’t been, and therefore it can’t (or shouldn’t, or won’t, or whatever) ever be in the future”. But “no it can’t be”? Based on what actual wording? Precedent? But the whole point of the “nuclear option” is to overturn precedent by majority vote.
I think you don’t find it because they’re all for keepsies. The novelty of the “nuclear option” was figuring out that even though it took a supermajority to change Senate rules, through a certain combination of those rules you could actually change rules with a regular majority.
So maybe you can fashion a rule in a way that it only applies to a single bill. But one of two things probably happens: A parliamentarian rules that it’s not a valid change according to some other rule on rules, or by setting a new standard it has the effect of killing the filibuster entirely or on bills of particular importance to the majority, a standard that will relax over time. So yes, by “can’t” I kind of mean “has never been done, so the radical nature must be acknowledged when discussing it as a strategy”, but also “can’t” as in it will have broad consequences that are unlikely to make it in practice a one-off thing.