The "Nuclear Option"

[PatrickHenry]

No, it is not about real nuclear weapons. It is a strategy proposed by the Republican leadership of the US Senate to cut off the traditional option of filibuster to tie up issues that minorities feel strongly about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec12.html
or truthout: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec12.html

As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist. Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters. <snip> At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling - far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures. It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices. <snip> during the Clinton administration, the GOP majority in the Senate blocked action on dozens of judicial nominations, without need for a filibuster because they could use their majority-party powers to bury nominations in committee or block them through anonymous "holds" on the Senate floor. Republicans counter that, even though the number of filibustered nominations is small, the Democrats are trampling on the Constitution by denying a straight up-or-down vote for even a single nomination. The Constitution, they note, requires two-thirds majorities for treaties, constitutional amendments and other specific matters but calls for only the "advice and consent" of the Senate on judicial choices, with no reference to any super-majority for confirmation. Democrats disagree, arguing that the Constitution empowers Congress to set its own rules of operation and does not specify the size of a majority needed for judicial confirmations because the issue was to be left to the Senate to decide. "What about all these people who say they want a literal reading of the Constitution?" asked Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee. While frustrated Senate leaders have resorted in the past to tactics involving at least some aspects of the nuclear option, none of the confrontations approached the significance - or political explosiveness - of the current dispute, with implications stretching beyond the issue of judicial nominations. While it would not directly threaten filibusters on legislative issues, critics believe it could open the door to further erosion of the Senate's long tradition of unlimited debate as a last refuge for political minorities and a brake on precipitous action by presidents and legislative majorities. While Bush would have an easier time getting the judges he wants, Democrats warn that he could run into trouble on Social Security, tax simplification and other major second-term initiatives that will probably require Democratic cooperation for passage. Use of the nuclear option "would make the Senate look like a banana republic . . . and cause us to try to shut it down in every way," Schumer said. "Social Security and tax reform need Democratic support. If they use the nuclear option, in all likelihood they would not get Democratic support" for those and other initiatives, he added. Republicans considered the nuclear option last year but backed off because they lacked the votes to prevail. Emboldened by a gain of four seats from the Nov. 2 elections, many of its most ardent supporters believe they now have the votes to win.

My question to the debaters here: Should the Republican majority in the Senate respect long standing tradition or should they use their current position to change rules in a way that favors their agenda?

[bishop]

they certainly should.. single party total control is reminiscent of communism/fascism.. if these nazis choose to go that route, i hope they die a painful death.

no single party should EVER be able to dominate our lives in the manner suggested by this article. it is downright frightful that such an option would even be contemplated. i'd oppose it even if the dems were the majority party.

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop if these nazis

If they were really nazi's they wouldn't need to go through any of this, now would they? :p

[bishop]

this would represent the gradual capture of total power. something the fascists did.

you could benefit from some more education dieval.

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: Dieval If they were really nazi's they wouldn't need to go through any of this, now would they? :p

Not in the slightest. What Hitler did took years and was hidden under the guise of "national security". It wasn't like they just took over and the next day were exterminating people. It was an incremental, complex process that involved black ops, dirty tricks and covert conspiracies in order to operate outside of public scrutiny. Hitler had to hide A LOT from his own people (and the world for that matter). A & E is full of crap sometimes. Ever talked to a Holocaust survivor? Do it before they're all gone.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Considering the rules that state only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Judge is now in fact a 60 vote requirement because of the Dems temper tantrums, this shouldn't surprise anyone.

[bishop]

but both sides have done the same in years past.. you really can't just pick and choose when it's okay to pull stunts like this simply because your favored party is in power.. what would you say if 10 years from now the dems have the power and they pull stuff like this to get their agenda passed?

this sets a dangerous precedent which BOTH parties could abuse.

[Technosoul]

Bishop is correct in my opinion, they should not change the rules in mid-steam just because they currently have a majority win, in fact they might as well by-pass voting all together and just let Bush give out orders directly for his appointments (because it would be clear who would be put into that seat on the Supreme Court). As least as it now stands Bush will have to come up with a name that at least the Democrats might approve of also, someone not objectionable to both sides of the asile.

The only other fair atlernative choice would be to even up the votes 50-50 by having each party toss their names into a hat (two hats) and then picking 10 or so names from each hat and those selected at random would then be the ones who would cast the votes. That way you can keep a sense of balance without any need for filibustering. Now if I can sit here and in one moment think up a simple solution why can't those people in Washington do the same thing?

Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Keep in mind though, that although Bush and Cheney don't have any more elections to worry about, Congress DOES. I think they have already handed the Democrats a few seats, depending on what Bush does in the next 4 years of course, and I doubt they will go SO far overboard, knowing the Dems will be pushing all this stuff next cycle.

I think they have a good idea as to what their limits are and I also think they have learned from their pathetic and counterproductive impeachment of Clinton to push TOO much.

[bishop]

if the dems had the power the GOP does, hypothetically, they could push through legislation to tax the hell out of rich folk - which runs against what republicans stand for... using these parlimentary rules, they could pass such legislation.. just an example that this "nuclear option" is one hell of a pandora's box.

[Milton Bradley]

This would be a good place to point out that there has not been a President that was neither Deomcrat, or Republican for 154 years.


To think these two entities are not playing off of each other is rediculous. Its the essence of pork barrel spending, and so many of the other problems we face today. The alleged "compromises" the two parties make to each other in the name of getting along. The reason for needing to invent words like bi-partisan.


How far from constitutional government would we be without constantly alternating between Republican, and Democrat?


How far from being the World Police Force would we be without constantly alternating between Republican, and Democrat?


How many other problems would we not have without this phenomenon?

[ericsp23]

I was thinking about how the Schiavo leglislation and the reaction to it might impact the decision by the Senate Republicans to pursue the "nuclear option." I wonder if the public reaction to Congress' involvement in the case will cause them to think twice about this? The public reaction has been overwhelmingly negative in response, even among people who believe that Schiavo should not be allowed to die. The American people seem to feel that they do not want a "tyranny of the majority" even if they happen to agree with the current majority. '
Wouldn't it be ironic if, after adopting the nuclear option, the backlash is so strong that the Republicans loose control of the Senate? I wouldn't take any pleasure in it though because I don't trust any political party with that kind of power.

[ericsp23]

I'm bumping this thread again because it looks like this may come to a vote in the next few weeks. IMO, this could be the final nail in the coffin of American democracy.
One party rule, here we come.

[Milton Bradley]

We have had one party rule for 155 years. The RepubloDemocrats split into the two familiar parties in 1850.


Millard Filmore (Whig) was the last President that was niether Republican, or Democrat.


Even if both parties are legitamately sperate, a two party lock is equally disturbing in my opinion.

[ericsp23]

I agree that the 2 party system leaves much to be desired, but I fail to see how allowing religious fundamentalists the power to unilateraly implement any policy they want is an improvment.

[PatrickHenry]

It looks like this will happen, not the off-topic stuff you guys dumped on this thread, but eliminating the filibuster for judicial appointments. The Republicans are so determined to stack the Federal bench with their ideological clones that they are willing to crush age-old Senate tradition in the process. Evidence of further deterioration in the carefully balanced system the Founders established.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo.../santorum.html

Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, has reassured conservative activist leaders that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is committed to triggering the “nuclear option,” stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster judicial nominees. Santorum met the leaders Tuesday to dispel growing anxiety among conservatives that Frist was wavering over what some Republicans call the “constitutional” or “Byrd” option — a procedural tactic that would disallow judicial filibusters by a ruling of the Senate chair and a ratifying majority vote.

[bishop]

i know this has nothing to do with the topic, but in our local sub-culture paper here - the weekly dig - there was a certain author who was talking about the mixture of cum and shit in a gay man's ass.. he called that sweet substance - santorum.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for that enlightening bit of trivia, bishop. Have you enrolled in castille's new university, The China Trolling Institute?

[Mr.Vicchio]

PH aren't the Dems breaking that tradition by forcing a judicial nominee to have 60 votes instead of the constitutionally required 51?

[tipper 11]

It's worse than nuclear weapons in a way.