MyDD :: Senator Reid on the Nuclear Option

Senator Reid on the Nuclear Option

by Chris Bowers, Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:29:25 PM EST

I just got off a conference call with Senator Reid concerning the nuclear option There were some very interesting and important pieces of information.

First, and most importantly, the frequent reports that Reid and Democrats would "shut the Senate down," if Frist and the Republicans went ahead with the nuclear option are wrong. The actual plan of attack would be to "stop giving deference" to the Republican agenda in terms of what is debated on the Senate floor. What "deference" means in the context of the Senate, if I understood this part of the call correctly, is that traditionally the majority party has set the agenda for what proposed legislation is taken up on floor debates, while the minority party pursues its agenda in the form of amendments on the proposed legislation that is being debated.

However, if Frist goes ahead with the Nuclear Option, Senate Democrats would stop showing that deference, and use a Senate rule known as a "motion to proceed" that would require our agenda--health care, education, increased veterans benefits--to be debated on the floor of the Senate without the approval of the majority party. This would force Republicans to vote down health care, education, and other issues that are very popular with the public. In short, the end of judicial filibusters would also mean the end of deference to the agenda of the majority party.

Secondly, this report seems to be true, and it is not just Biden and a few other Senators in support of it:

Meanwhile Sunday, there were hints of a possible compromise. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, told ABC News's "This Week": "I think we should compromise and say to them that we're willing to -- of the seven judges -- we'll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through, and put off this [rule-change] vote."

If I understood Senator Reid correctly, this is a possible compromise all Senate Democrats are looking into.

Third and finally, the only reason Frist has not yet gone ahead with the "nuclear option" is because he does not have the votes, period. All Demcorats are opposed. The wavering or opposed Republicans are Chafee, Collins, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Smith, Snow and Warner. We need six of those nine in order to stop the nuclear option. I believe we already have four: Chafee, Collins, McCain and Snow. That would mean we need two of the following five: Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Smith and Warner.

Update: Over at Talk Left, Jeralyn Merritt has more on the call.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

I can guarantee McCain votes No (none / 0)

McCain has stated categorically that
he will vote against rules change,
in private. In public he's drawn
attention to the partisanship going on
in DC and he's standing for a more bipartisan
approach. The nuclear option is not something
he's going to cover. Count Mcain as a NO.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:33:43 PM EST

Brilliant. (none / 0)

The "Motion to Proceed" exactly what we need right now. We'll get Repubs on record voting down apple pie and baby seals, derailing 2005 and setting up 2006 at the same time. Harry Reid is a force.

This move gives us many of the benefits of the "counter-agenda" discussed here, without the detail-driven fallout.

by Frontier PAC on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:34:58 PM EST

Re: Brilliant. (none / 0)

eh - Harry could be a lot stronger on some positions but you know, he's a definite improvement over
"I support this presidents war" Tom Daschle.

I'd have to say tho + I like his style. He's
got a looong way to go.

I wonder what the mechanics of a deal to
get the last seven cut into four or so, would
look like.

We had a rundown of this crew, when they
were 10. Three withdrew.

Does anyone have a profile list of these
last 7 of the 210 ?

(it ain't so tough when you consider the GOP blocked SIXTY judges back in the late 90's under
clinton.. still.. )

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brilliant. (none / 0)

Agreed. Reid may actually succeed in getting some good legislation passed because some moderate 'pubs
will vote for some of these bills. The reason they don't now is because the GOP controls the agenda and the Dem ideas only get considered as amendments that the 'pubs can vote down in good conscience because of GOP "party discipline or loyalty".

by phillydem on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Checked into Warner.. (none / 0)

Warner looks like he's leaning against it,
I've checked private discussions that
state Warner thinks its a bad idea and
he's leaning towards a Nay vote on
the issue. He's making noises like he's
going to run in 2008. I think he wants
to play it conservative here..

If there's five against, would Frist try
to pull the trigger? He doesn't strike
me as a dumb bunny..

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:36:54 PM EST

One thing thats still pretty funny- (none / 0)

Frist addresses this church group, this
focus on the family folk -

The ONLY religious comment he made was
a generic comment about "people of faith"

Thats it. A 10 second bit in a 30 minute
speech.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:42:02 PM EST

Kagro X supplies some history lessons (none / 0)

Check it out. From The Next Hurrah, Kagro X's series on the filibuster Part III.

Gold and Gupta take back to the origins of the cloture procedure, citing Senator Thomas J. Walsh (D-MT), whom they credit with advocating the "constitutional option" in 1917:

Like Byrd, Walsh reasoned that a newly commenced Senate may disregard the rules established by a prior Senate, including the rules governing filibusters, and adopt new rules in their stead.

And later:

A past Senate, [Walsh] reasoned, could not take this right away from succeeding Senates by passing debate rules that, in practice, prevented a new Senate from choosing its own rules by majority vote.

What was Walsh's reasoning?

Walsh noted that at the start of each session the House has no rules until it, while operating under general parliamentary procedures, adopts new rules or re-adopts the prior rules. Similarly, he concluded, the Senate has no rules until it adopts new rules or re-adopts the prior rules, whether explicitly by a vote or implicitly by operating under them and thus acquiescing to them.

Bob Brigham provided the links to the entire Kagro X series http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/24/162140/654].

Read, learn and enjoy.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:50:50 PM EST

What's Different (none / 0)

The entire House stands for election every year. Thus, it truly is a new body, no matter how many are re-elected. But this isn't true of the Senate, with it's staggered terms. It is never a truly new body.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's Different (3.00 / 0)

every other year, you mean.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:27:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I Meant 'Session' (none / 0)

I'm fighting a cold, and it's winning. Can you tell?

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Virginians!!! (none / 0)

I emailed Warner to ask him to not take this extreme action. Here is a link to his email form. Good luck!

by Smileswearily on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:16:36 PM EST

Biden Again Looks To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws (3.00 / 0)

of Victory

May I remind you that Joe Biden's most defining moments include (1) railroading Clarence Thomas through the Judiciary Committee when there were other witnessess supporting Anita Hills' character testimony about him waiting to be heard, and (2) publicly attacking Lani Guinier's nomination to be Assistant Attornery General for Civil Rights, based on a smear campaign by rightwing think tanks promoted in the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages.

Biden, in short, is a walking disaster, always ready to help the Republicans out when they need it, always ready to rip out the Democrats spine, when they, on rare occassions, actually grow one.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:27:59 PM EST

Compromise? (2.00 / 3)

Compromise? Haven't we compromised ourselves into near oblivion? I just wish Biden would STFU unless he's in hearings - about the only place he acts like a Democrat. But, then, of course, he goes and votes with BushCo.

by dksbook on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:30:17 PM EST

Re: Compromise? (3.00 / 0)

I agree. Frist and conservatives claim a major victory if either 1) they pass nuclear option, or 2) Dems compromise and let all but two nominees pass. Frist is able to claim he faced down those "obstructionist" Democrats and won a major victory. A compromise gets you nothing, but shows you are weak in the face of strength. What do Dems get out of the compromise? Nuthin'

The nuclear option may turn out to be nothing but a great poker face for Bill Frist if we cave in now.

by CAat14K on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Specter (none / 0)

I called Specter's Philly office to let them know I want Specter to uphold the judicial fillibuster. I didn't get much sense of Specter's position from the staffer I spoke to. All he said was Specter was a "fair man". My own sense is that Specter prefers not to vote to kill the judicial fillibuster and probably wants to figure out a compromise. OTOH, I heard bits and pieces of a speech he gave on the Senate floor just days ago that sounded like he was trying to make the case for eliminating the judicial fillibuster. Specter really tilts with the winds, so keep your eyes on him to get a read on which way they are blowing.

I'd encourage all Pennsylvanians to call Specter, though.

by phillydem on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:34:01 PM EST

GOP Claims (none / 0)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20050424/pl_nm/congress_ju dges_dc

I am sure this is BS posturing but they claim to have the 51 votes. I think they are going for a compromise; something I hope they don't do as the deference ending and the filibuster will kill then in 2006. Frist claims Reid called him a radical republican... anyone recall if or when Reid siad this?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:38:06 PM EST

Re: "Motion to Proceed" won't work... (3.00 / 0)

It would be more accurate to say that it didn't work in the political and media context in which it was attempted. What was the 1970's GOP rapid-response team like? Did they have anything that can compare to the fat email lists and wired activist base that both party and extra-party Democratic institutions can now tap into? It probably wasn't even that easy to find your Senator/Reprentiative's phone number then compared to now.

Not to be crass, but unless we get really lucky, the whole point of this excercise is showmanship and to get people's cards on the table. We can do that if we're a ble to aggressively and pre-emptively box-in the Republicans' choices: Do you like x(working families, babies, etc.) or not?

This tactic will not work in terms of immediate solvency of the issues addressed by the legislation. But it can work to highlight a key distinction to voters, which can be a very good thing.

by Frontier PAC on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:50:02 PM EST

Check out Thresholder's diary (none / 0)

Harry Reid is a genius.

A little hyperbole, but Harry made a pretty damn fine move.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 03:07:17 PM EST

Are We Aiming For the Worst Result (3.00 / 0)

I have always felt that the very worst result would be a "compromise" a.k.a. "surrender" like what Boder suggested this weekend (we give up the fillibuster, they promise to be nice). The compromise being discussed by Reid- we let 8 or so of their very worst through, Bush withdraws 2-isnt any better. Remember, we have already let through 285 or so out of 295 or so.

THIS "COMPROMSISE" (SURRENDER) IS MUCH WORSE THEN JUST LOSING ON THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

Why do I say this. Let's say that Frist has the votes to do away with fillibusters. The rule is gone forever, including when we retake the Senate and the White House in '08. But this compromise-surrender, leaves the fillibuster intact for the Republicans to misuse in '09. They will say, "hey, you guys started it, we are just doing now what you did to Bush." The new (Democratic) President will not get any judges through, or at least very very few because the Republicans will just fillibuster them.

Ultimately, the Democrats win if we keep the fillibuster in a form that allows us to use it in a meaningful way to stop the worst of Bush's picks, or if it is done away with completely both for us and for them. The only way we lose is if we keep the fillibuster for the Republicans to misuse later while hampering our ability to use it now.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 03:26:17 PM EST

If the Democrats "compromise" (3.00 / 1)

As Biden suggests, they tell Republicans that "no" means "ask again later." Either they tell them "no" means "no," or they might as well give them every damn one of those nominees, because one way or the other, Republicans will have them.

Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

by Drew on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:00:28 PM EST

video - filibuster (3.00 / 1)

Check out this great video of Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isaacson extolling the virtues of the filibuster.... pj

http://reid.senate.gov/video/isakson.mov

by global yokel on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:04:34 PM EST

Re: video - filibuster (none / 0)

Great work. THis needs to be seen. I just tossed it up on Swing State Project.

That is great.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

motion to proceed (none / 0)

In response to the criticism up thread, I think the goal here is to keep the press from making it a "process" story.

If Frist goes nuke and gets his 51 (I'm betting against on both counts), then the press will want to know what happens next? My proposing an issue agenda rather than a "shut down," the hope is that the story will be about the Dems bringing issues to the floor. It won't be easily seen as a tit-for-tit inside baseball response ...esp if gas prices get any higher.

by desmoulins on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:30:41 PM EST

Re: motion to proceed (none / 0)

The democats should be bringing these issues to the floor now, they should have been doing this for the past 4 1/2 years.

Further, Bush is just trying to force his way on some very poor nominees when he has gotten the great majority of his nominees thru.

Bush is willing to destroy everything to get his own way, 100%. You have to stand up to a bully, not give in to him. We need to make the GOP and Bush pay dearly for destroying Senate procedure and just not showing deference for their agenda does not qualify as response in kind, its much too weak a response.

We should not compromise at all.

Further, Biden is an asshole.

Correction, Biden is an egotisical asshole.

by leschwartz on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: motion to proceed (none / 0)

What's interesting is that the Rule XIV procedures will force what is arguably the very opposite of a "shut down." Viewers everywhere will be able to turn on C-SPAN2 and see more Senators on the floor, doing more talking and more voting than ever before.

People will be able to see with their own eyes that there's no shutdown. And in the wake of the nuclear vs. constitutional option flap, we even have a nicely framed name for it: the motion to proceed.

Only in Washington, where a slowdown in the rate of growth is a cut (to borrow a phrase) could a "motion to proceed" be a shutdown.

by Kagro X on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:57:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Write or call your Senator. (none / 0)

I wrote Lindsey Graham about opposing filibuster. I haven't heard back from him though.

Graham is hard to read. He doesn't like the filibusters themselves, but he would be hesitant to change Senate rules, and is well aware that the Republican majority won't last forever. He's a protege of John McCain, but he comes from a very conservative state.

I encourage all South Carolinians who are reading this message to let Lindsey Graham know your opinion. The other side WILL be pressuring him, so we must let our opinion be heard as well.

I also wrote my other Senator, Jim DeMint. (Not that it will do any good.)

by wayward on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:35:40 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.