Right Wing Power Grab

Over at Wampum, Dwight Meredith has a very good article about Frist and the so called nuclear option:
Last year, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to "go nuclear" over Democrats filibusters of ten of President Bush's judicial nominees. One version of the nuclear option is described in Human Events:

A document circulating among Senate Republicans and conservative legal circles in Washington, D.C., outlines the plan. "A senator would raise a point of order to close debate on a nominee," it says. "The presiding officer [Vice President Cheney] would sustain the point of order, thereby setting a new, binding precedent. The minority's appeal of the ruling could be tabled with a simple majority vote."

That process would mean that Frist would not need 60 votes to invoke cloture under Senate Rule XXII. In effect, the nuclear option would prevent filibusters of judicial nominees.

Meredith goes into enlightening detail over the status of this option, and it is worth a read. He also cites a recent WaPo article on the subject of vote counting for the nuclear option:
If five Republicans joined a solid bloc of Democrats, Cheney could break the 50-50 tie in favor of banning judicial filibusters. If a sixth Republican defected, Frist would fall short.

The GOP leader appears perilously close to that breaking point. In recent weeks, four moderate Republicans have criticized the nuclear option in published remarks that their offices confirmed or did not challenge on Friday. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) told the Portland Press Herald, "I just don't see how it's going to benefit us, even in the majority, to change it to a simple majority [vote] because ultimately it could create more wedges and political wounds." Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) "doesn't think the nuclear option is a great idea," her spokeswoman, Jen Burita, said.

Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) has said "I'm not in favor" of the option. And Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) recently told CQ Today he would not support the option because "the Senate should not be like the House."

Meanwhile, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said in a statement Friday: "I have not reached a firm view on the matter. However, I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception. Without question, though, I am strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations." He said, "I remain to be persuaded that the seriousness of the problem merits such an extraordinary solution," but "the Senate may be forced to take some action to preserve the president's Constitutional obligation to fill [court] vacancies."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) also has questioned the wisdom of eliminating the minority's right to filibuster, citing times when Democrats ruled the Senate.

At least three GOP senators -- Thad Cochran (Miss.), Ted Stevens (Alaska) and John E. Sununu (N.H.) -- have declined to take public stands on the issue. Democrats hope veterans such as Cochran and Stevens, who have served in the minority, will vote to preserve the filibuster tradition even though they like Bush's nominees.

Senate Democrats, on the other hand, may suffer a defection if Frist tries the nuclear option during a filibuster of an appellate court judge. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) did not support last year's filibusters of appellate judge nominees, his spokesman, David DiMartino, said, "But when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee, he reserves the option to do so based on the nature of the nominee."

After watching nearly every proposal Bush wanted sail through the Senate during 2003-2004, I am not very optimistic about this. However, if Republicans do in fact achieve their latest power grab, when Democrats regain control of the Senate, they should not change the rules back. If they are going nuclear, we should maintain a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.



Display:


Dems have dug up a MAD option (none / 0)

For those who don't remember cold war rhetoric and strategies, MAD was the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

If the GOP goes nuclear, the Dems have promised they will stop allowing unanimous consent decrees on Congressional Actions. That means things like the text of every piece of legislation read into the record three times, votes cast on the record on every single minor action Congress takes like recessing for the day, congratulating Super Bowl Champs, etc.

Congress grinds to a complete and utter standstill. The GOP could keep Congress open 24/7/365 and still never get anything done.

by afs on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 02:37:51 PM EST

Fillibuster is also a "nuclear" option (none / 0)

If preventing a filibuster is stopping the wheels of the Senate, what is a filibuster? The filibuster is something that shouldn't be abused. I believe that a filibuster should only be used in cases where further debate might actually change votes. The democrats need to realize that if they want to influence the composition of the courts, they might first start with winning. Kerry explicitly said that a vote for Bush was a vote for more Scalias and Thomases, and do you know what? 60 million people voted for it.
by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 23, 2005 at 01:32:21 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.