home

Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option

People For the American Way Foundation (PFAW), the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Sierra Club, and the Alliance for Justice have released this Statement on Bipartisan Discussions Regarding the Judicial Confirmation Process:

  • We oppose strongly the nuclear option and the efforts to eliminate the filibuster, the last check and balance in the legislative branch of the federal government. The Frist-Lott-Rove attempts to change Senate rules by breaking them are unprecedented and irresponsible. We oppose any effort to take away the right of any Senator to filibuster now or in the future.

  • We oppose the nominations of unqualified, out-of-the-mainstream judges who would turn back the clock on decades of progress in securing fundamental rights and liberties, including civil rights, privacy rights, reproductive rights, environmental safeguards, workers’ rights, consumer rights, and religious liberty; and we support the withholding of Senate consent to such nominations through the use of the filibuster if necessary.
  • For years we have been encouraging the President, Republican Senators and Democratic Senators to engage in bipartisan consultation and negotiation in an effort to achieve a bipartisan consensus on judicial nominations. We commend the efforts of Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, and those Republican Senators who are willing to engage in bipartisan discussions.
  • We will not endorse any compromise which undermines the principles we have articulated.

We are the last line of defense to preserve the independence and intergrity of our courts. As NARAL's action letter says:

It's critical that the Senate independently review each judicial nominee and take into account each nominee's record, judicial philosophy, and knowledge of the law. Short-cutting Senate debate on lifetime appointments to the federal court is inappropriate and dangerous.

Head on over to any one of these groups and sign on to an action letter. Or write your own letter to your Senator - paticularly if he or she is Republican - and tell them as a constituent, you expect them to oppose the nuclear option.

< House Ethics Committee Will Change Rules | Say Hello >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    I agree with these groups that the filibuster should not be done away with, but aren't the checks and balances supposed to be between the branches of government, not within them?

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    Good point, justpaul. I really can't figure how the Republicans don't think they'll need the filibuster in the future...100% acceptance of all nominations is not "advise and consent." It's a rubberstamp for whoever's in power at the time... Then again, with 2/3's of America against it, the "nuclear" option will be mothballed...you heard it here on Talkleft first. Book it. reference: The Ethics Committee

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    Thought Mechanic... are you giving out tune-ups? I have some suggestions...

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    More personal attacks? I'm getting used to it on TL, but sure, go ahead.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    ThoughtMechanic, I'm getting the sense that you utterly lack a sense of humor. (And I'm sorry if you see that as yet another attack;-) Having thought about this some more, I'd have to say I'm rather disappointed with the statement these groups have put out (even I do agree with their desired end). It shows a lack of understanding as to how our government is supposed to function, as well as a lack of knowledge about how it did for the first 17 years of its existence. The filibuster is a tactical rule, but it is not one enshrined in the Constitution and therefore cannot be considered one of the "checks and balances" that are built into the system. I would expect the ACLU and PFAW to know this.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    My views on the filibuster are stated enough - but thought this was interesting: irritating the President

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    Actually justpaul, I enjoyed Blaghdaddy's antics previously until TL told everyone to cool it...I'm sure my sense of humor would not disappoint you, except I'm not a mind-reader...if someone makes a joke and is slapped, if someone else makes a nasty attack and is let pass, I just would prefer to keep to the topic. I usually end my "jokes" with a smiling face so no one will be confused...otherwise, how can one tell? I'm actually not "the" ThoughtMechanic, either. That title goes to Theron Parlin, site-founder and awesome guy. My name is Joseph, so I just use my featuring site's name so I don't become one of 1000 Joes out there. As for inviting me to tinker, if that was a joke, good one. I just couldn't tell...

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    justpaul: The filibuster is a check on the chief executive, i.e. prevents rubber-stamping of nominations. Further, the Senate was originally designed to protect the rights of the minority (at the time this was small states with less population), so yes, there is a balancing feature built into the legislature itself. It's called bicameralism.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    While I agree that the end is appropriate... that the filibuster should not be removed... its certainly not a form of check and balance... at least not in the constitutional sense. The rules of Congress are made by Congress, and can be changed by Congress... It's a rule of procedure... the real truth is that the Republicans are incredibly stupid if they pass this... because the next time we have a Democrat majority in the Senate... they won't have the use of the filibuster... too big a risk if you ask me. Everyone see the news about the Republicans opening up the way for a probe on DeLay? Bout time if you ask me.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    Not a moment too soon...and that's why I personally believe the filibuster flap is dying as we speak. Frist is the proof. He would have if he could have, but now the public is starting to pay attention and ask, "What ARE these guys doing up there?" and the Republicans know they don't have the support...game, set and match.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 01:25:01 PM EST
    Justin, The Chief Executive is a member of a different branch of government. Thank you for proving my point. As for the Senate: Good point, but we gave up on the idea of the Senators representing the states rather than the people a long time ago, when we changed how they are chosen to one of direct election. Nevertheless, this would be a check and balance between the two houses of congress (which is, admittedly, an apparent check and balance within the same branch), but not a check and balance within the senate, which is what these groups are suggesting. Again, if the founding fathers had intended such a check to exist, they would have put it into the system. As it is, it didn't even exist in any form until 1806.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    I wonder if the reluctance to trigger the "nuclear option" is due to the uniting of groups as diverse as the ones mentioned in TL post, as well as the few "conservative" groups that have come out in opposition to doing away with the filibuster. Appelations to groups against Frist and Co. like "liberal" and "conservative" take away from the fact that many different groups are leery of the prospect of a Senate with even slight changes made to procedure, even if said procedure is, as some pundits have stated, a "traditional" debating method and not actually enshrined in the Constitution. Anyways, I was wondering what everyone else thought was the reason behind the jitters that Frist et al. are feeling over going "nuclear". Some thoughts on this?

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:45:52 PM EST
    It may be starting to occur to the neocons that they have overreached. DeLay is a problem for them. The filibuster is a problem for them. Privatizing Social Security is a problem for them. Iraq is a problem for them. 2006 can't come soon enough for me.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:39:01 PM EST
    They are only talking about ending the filibuster on judicial nominees, not on legislation. All they want to do is give a President with majority backing an up or down vote on his nominees. Where is the filibuster in the Constitution anyways? All of the judicial nominees have received favorable ratings to my knowledge from the group that rates them (the Bar Association?) The Democrats oppose any judge that might do away with Roe v. Wade. That's really the issue here.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:31:51 PM EST
    The conservatives are going to due away with the fillbuster. No one can stop them, their media network is vast they control most of talk radio, the network and cable news show more conservatives points then liberals. The only way the liberals are going to retake congress and presidency is to allow the conservatives to do what they want. It sounds crazy, but when the GOP does away with workers rights and citizen civil rights, then the people will know what oppression is then they will mobilize and vote. The bad part about this is idea is once the GOP gain total control they can change laws to make sure they remain in power, If this happens then the civil right movement will once again start. The question is how much of a fight will the GOP use tp keep the political power, will the GOP instruct the law enforcement to shoot the protestors. The likly excuse the GOP will use is they were terrorrist. If this was happen then everyone in the world will know that even a democracy can turn into dictatorships.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:55:58 AM EST
    GOP has forgotten to provide the bread and circuses. Gay marriage and nuclear options aren't circusy enough.
    Thought Mechanic... "are you giving out tune-ups? I have some suggestions..." : )
    (note smiley face denotes tongue in cheek). What has happened to Tom DeLay??? Amber Alert to be issued shortly! I like the quote from above: Game, Set, Match.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 06:59:44 AM EST
    You're right, John. It does sounds crazy. Because it is. Changing the laws to allow anyone to stay in power, at least as it involves staying in Congress or the Presidency, involves changing the Constitution, and that is something that cannot be done from inside the beltway. It takes three-quarters of the states to do that, and even then only after two-thirds of both houses of Congress have agreed to the idea. Changing the Constitution to allow for more than two presidential terms or extending the terms of representatives and senators is beyond unlikely and, judging from precedent, even if it was done it would not apply to the people in office when the law was changed. As for the filibuster, it will not be "done away with", even if Frist goes forward with "the nuclear option" (Which is looking less and less likely every day), because it will remain for everything except judicial nominations and those issues to which it already does not apply. On top of which, should Frist go forward with this, it will cost the Republicans the Senate, the Democrats will be back in control (barring some gift from heaven in the form of a viable third option) and the Democrats can re-instate the filibuster for judicial nominees on January 3, 2007 or January 3, 2009 (depending on when they retake the senate, but at the rate things are going these days it probably won't be any later than 2009). Let's not hyperventilate too much here. Worst case scenario, we get a few bad judges on the bench over the next few years; judges who can be impeached by a Democratic Congress if they turn out to be even half as bad as those who oppose them want us to believe they are. We get some bad legal decisions which can be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. On the plus side: We all get a first hand lesson in the dangers of faction. A danger the founding fathers saw quite clearly and did their best to alleviate. But that was back in the days of part-time legislators, and things have changed (for the worse).

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:52:38 AM EST
    JustPaul, Rational scenario - except for one thing. If the judicial filibuster was voted out of the rules (and I agree thats very unlikely to occur) it will not be reinstated by the first democratic controlled senate - why would they allow republican blocking of democratic judges (unless the President was still conservative). The only time it might be re-instated was by a party who saw the writing on the wall in the next election and wanted to insure their minority rights down the road. This argument is not over principle from either side; but an issue of short-term tactics.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:21:22 AM EST
    JCH, Agreed in theory, but we're not supposed to be talking about theory here, but rather principle. Nearly every argument in favor of retaining the filibuster for judicial nominees is based on the principle that this gives the minority some sort of "check and balance" role with regard to nominations. If those Democratic Senators who propound this argument truly believe it, and if they are still in the Senate when the Democrats take over again, then their first action should be to re-instate the rule should Frist actually move forward and get it changed. Yes, if they did this, they would be handing a tool to thwart them back to the Republicans, but if they don't, they will be underlining the fact that everything they are saying now is for political propoganda purposes only. And we've seen this happen before. The same people who are saying that the filibuster is a sacred tradition now were arguing a different tune entirely when it was Clinton nominating judges; then they wanted an up or down vote on every nominee. That those who claim to be in support of this principle are not in fact in support of it is not a reason to reject the principle itself. If they believe what they are saying, they can fix the problem when they regain control and they can impeach any judge who has acted outside the law as well.

    Re: Taking a Stand Against the Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:36:54 AM EST
    We agree - I just wish the Senate were arguing this on principle. I think everything they are saying now is for political propaganda purposes. Too bad it will not be removed now - if for no other reason than to see what the opponents would do if they controlled the White House and the Senate in the future. Of course, that is a little disingenuous on my part because I would like it gone anyway - on principle.