home

The Nuclear Option

By TChris, Section Judiciary
Posted on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Arlen Specter, walking a tightrope between voters who didn't think they were electing an extremist and the extremists in his party who expect blind obedience to their commands, isn't ruling out the "nuclear option": a vote to do away with the filibuster. Jason Miller writes that Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas doesn't want to hear what voters think of this arrogant plan to thwart a venerable Senate tradition.

As we presented a petition signed by 314 Kansans and stated our position that Sen. Roberts needed to fight to save the filibuster, it became readily apparent that our effort would bear little fruit. The aide we met quickly informed us that Sen. Roberts was supporting Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader who is the driving force behind the threat to employ the “nuclear option.” Sen. Roberts had already made up his mind, and our 600,000 member organization, our message and our petition were not likely to change it.

< San Francisco May Begin Regulating Pot Clubs | S.C. Lawyers In Need of Charm School >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • The Nuclear Option | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    Specter's got to go. He's by far the most unmitigated arrogant whack of the bunch!

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    I'd hardly call the Senate voting on judicial nominees (per the constitution) an "extremist" position. Sounds more like sour grapes.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#3)
    by cp on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:00:16 PM EST
    yep ras, that same whacky bunch that "voted" for clinton's nominees. interestingly, the worm will eventually turn, and the republicans, then being back in the minority, will complain bitterly that they are being ignored. while i'm not surprised at the short-term memory loss suffered by our pachyderm riding bretheren, i am troubled by their narrow focus. it's that kind of thought process that's brought us huge deficits, war in iraq, and the enmity of our european allies. you have to wonder just how arrogant they have to get, before the backlash hits.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#4)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    Appealing and judicious as it sounds, there will be no backlash. When the midterms come around the MSM will come up with another two or three red herrings that have nothing whatever to do with what's affecting us all. Stuff like the substance of this thread will but perform the shadow dance.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:36:08 PM EST
    I'd hardly call the Senate voting on judicial nominees (per the constitution) an "extremist" position. Oops..we're talking about removing the ability to filibuster in Congress, not the conformation of judicial nominees. I'm sure that you unintentionally veered off topic.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:37:35 PM EST
    confirmation, rather

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#7)
    by ras on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    Tampa, I checked the US constitution. No mention of filubsters, merely a comment that the senate can set whatever rules of order/procedure on itself that it chooses to. A habit is not necessarily a right, even if you want it to be.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:14:04 PM EST
    Tampa and all Non-political comment: I see no need to correct minor typos all the time. We know you're smart and are good spellers, and we can figure out the meaning. Unless it's something that truly needs fixing (e.g. the diff between interstate and intrastate, or macro and micro), can we just agree that typos are a fakt of life and leave it at that? It'd make the threads flow better, I think.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    "I'd hardly call the Senate voting on judicial nominees (per the constitution) an 'extremist' position." "Oops..we're talking about removing the ability to filibuster in Congress, not the conformation of judicial nominees." Well, it goes hand-in-hand. According to Seante rules, it takes 6o votes to end a debate, and it takes 67 votes to amend the rules, so the Republicans can't simply amend the rules to eliminate filibusters. The "nuclear option" would be a parliamentary ruling by Cheney (in his capacity as President of the Senate) that filibustering a judicial nominee is unconstitutional in view of the Senate's alleged constitutional duty to vote any judicial nominee up or down. A parliamentary ruling by the president of the senate is sustained by a bare majority vote. Of course, the constitutional interpretation on which the "nuclear option" is based (repeated by the commentor above) is perfectly loonie, to use the technical legal term. The constitution says the senate is to "advise and consent," not "vote," and the senate is also constitutionally empowered to make its own rules. If you look into the history of judicial nominations, there are instances of votes being delayed until the nominations were withdrawn or expired dating back to the era of the drafters of the constitution. Certainly, the Republicans did this to Clinton nominees all the time. These people have no respect whatever for the rule of law. How they can call themselves "conservative" is beyond me.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    Hmmm--somehow forgot to identify myself in that last post--the longwinded one at 7:17 . . .

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:55:41 PM EST
    The Democrats have a nuclear option of their own to employ if they choose. Minority Leader Harry Reid has already made reference to the fact that the D's can use a number of procederal tactics to completely shut down the Senate and prevent any legislation from moving forward if the R's decide to eliminate the filibuster by using their "nuclear option." Check out the link below to a video of Republican Senator Johnny Isaacson (GA) speaking about the role of the filibuster in a democracy. http://reid.senate.gov/video/isakson.mov

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:55:55 PM EST
    As raz sez, According to the Constitution the Senate makes its own rules. Let them work it out, after all it will take them forever to do it and in the mean time we will be spared the other noxious blathering from those Senate poseurs on both sides of the aisle. Overall, Bush is holding some good cards on the judicial appointments coming up. The question is how will the Democrats overcome thier disadvantage without sounding weak and whiny to the average joe. There is a Supreme Court appointment coming up soon and the battle lines are being drawn and all in all this should be great partisan fun for both sides. Enjoy, political junkies.... By the way, Talk Left love your site and nice referee-ing to all. Thank you for the fun.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:10:27 PM EST
    Don't think that I mentioned the constitutionality of the filibuster in my post. I think the debate is whether or not it is acceptable to the American people that the majority party change the rules in order to silence a minority party with a move that prior Congresses have managed to avoid for over a century. Thanks for your gracious words regarding the typo. I was quite concerned.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:42:04 PM EST
    TS - Please. A little accuracy. No one is being "silenced." Indeed, they are being given an opportunity to vote.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:21:56 AM EST
    ras - Wurks fur me! ;-) Dearest No Name - The Senate rules is what they are talking about changing. So 67 votes are not required. There is nothing in the constitution that says a super majority is required. et al - The Demos aren't going to win this argument because the Repubs are going to present it as acting democratically. Giving the people, through their elected representatives, a chance to vote. Now the Left can scream, but the middle and right will see no evil in this, and the minority population will not either. The inability of the Kennedy and Pelosi wing of the party to understand this is why they are loosing.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    Kansas Senators are bought and paid-for. They have no opinions but Chimpy's. They are useless and hopeless. Work on the Senators from Maine, instead. *They* have brains.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    Olympia Snowe does but Susan Collins is far right. I don't think she will be reelected, screwed her constituancy too many times. All 4 electoral votes went to Kerry in 04. They split according to popular vote. Think the voting machines are unfixed too.

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    Hey, the dems could get "borked" here. What goes around comes around...

    Re: The Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#19)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:35:12 PM EST
    Yeah, what business do people have trying to fix the government anyway.

    The Nuclear Option | 19 comments (19 topical)