<P> A new precedent is thus established allowing for cloture to be invoked by a simple majority on certain types of actions . These and other Senate precedents will then be relied upon by future Parliamentarians in advising the chair, effectively eliminating the 60 - vote barrier going forward . (Riddick's Senate Procedure is a compilation by Senate parliamentarians of precedents established throughout the entire history of the Senate by direct rulings of the chair, actions relating to rulings of the chair, or direct Senate action .) </P> <P> The legality of the nuclear option has been challenged . For example, former Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin expressed opposition to the nuclear option in 2005 . It's been reported that a Congressional Research Service report "leaves little doubt" that the nuclear option would not be based on previous precedents of the Senate . However, its validity has not been seriously challenged since being invoked by both parties in 2013 and 2017, at least with regard to invoking cloture on judicial nominations by simple majority vote . </P> <P> Senator Ted Stevens (R - Alaska) suggested using a ruling of the chair to defeat a filibuster of judicial nominees in February 2003 . The code word for the plan was "Hulk". Weeks later, Sen. Trent Lott (R - Miss .) coined the term nuclear option in March 2003 because the maneuver was seen as a last resort with possibly major consequences for both sides . The metaphor of a nuclear strike refers to the majority party unilaterally imposing a change to the filibuster rule, which might provoke retaliation by the minority party . </P> <P> The alternative term "constitutional option" is often used with particular regard to confirmation of executive and judicial nominations, on the rationale that the United States Constitution requires these nominations to receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate . Proponents of this term argue that the Constitution implies that the Senate can act by a majority vote unless the Constitution itself requires a supermajority, as it does for certain measures such as the ratification of treaties . By effectively requiring a supermajority of the Senate to fulfill this function, proponents believe that the current Senate practice prevents the body from exercising its constitutional mandate, and that the remedy is therefore the "constitutional option ." </P>

How many votes are needed in senate to pass a bill