Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

[toasty]

Have you all been following this?

-Bush has renominated the 10 US District Judges that were blocked last time they were up
-Democrats in the Senate have made clear their intention to filibuster to block the nominations
-Republicans, in turn, have threatened to change the Senate rules to essentially do away with the filibuster -- the so-called "nuclear option" because...
-Democrats have indicated that if the rules are changed, they will collectively refuse to allow anything to happen in the Senate (except for matters related to our troops and "essential operations") -- since any Senator's objection to, for example, a Committee meeting is sufficient to shut it down, the senate will absolutely grind to a halt

Honestly, Bush has a great record of getting judicial nominees through -- only 10 were blocked of something like 214 nominees. He's enjoyed a lot more success than Clinton, Reagan or the elder Bush. If the Republicans are willing to do this over 10 friggin' judges, they really need to reevaluate their priorities.

[Yao]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

Now please...what does 'filibuster' mean?

[Jenks]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only once debate ends.

[davetlv]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote.

Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only once debate ends.

The term comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom.

(Taken from C-SPAN Congressional Glossary)

[Jenks]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote.

Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only once debate ends.

The term comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom.

(Taken from C-SPAN Congressional Glossary)

ohhhhhhhhh, i beat dave to google. :P :P :P

[davetlv]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

damn you yanks are fast! :P

[toasty]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

The important thing about the filibuster is that it gives the senate minority the power to block things that are truly draconian. Historically, it has resulted in some absurd scenes, but it is truly the minority's final check against absolute power.

It works like this -- once a senator begins debate, he or she is free to speak as long as they damn well please and need not cede the floor to anyone unless they want to. A string of filibustering senators can therefore continue to talk until session ends without a vote, or they can wait until there is no longer a quorum (51 senators) and adjourn without a vote, to begin debate anew. They can talk about literally anything they want after three hours-- it need not pertain to the pending nomination. This has resulted in such ridiculous scenes as Senators literally reading from the NYC phone book to avoid giving up the floor. Here in St. Louis, a local politician actually urinated in a bucket on the floor of a City Council meeting while filibustering to avoid ending debate and allowing a vote.

A filibuster can be ended by invoking cloture, which ends debate. In the Senate, 60 senators must agree to end debate to kill a filibuster. Accordingly, in practice, actual filibusters are pretty rare nowadays -- if a party has enough votes to block cloture such that they could filibuster endlessly if need be, the threat of a filibuster is often enough to block the nomination or legislation. This understanding has developed in part to avoid the ridiculous and at times humiliating scene of an actual filibuster.

Senators have to answer to their constituents, so they can't stonewall at every opportunity, or they'd be out of a job. The filibuster does allow them a last ditch check against the power of the majority.

The new rules would allow a simple majority to invoke cloture -- i.e., the minority would be completely powerless to even participate in debate. I don't care what side of the fence you're on, creating an environment where a relatively slim majority controls all of the power in government and has the ability to ramrod whatever the hell they please through isn't really good for anyone -- actual debate creates the best laws, IMHO.

[BSully828]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

But this proposal doesn't apply to all filibusters, just those concerning the appointing of judicial nominees. This isn't new, the Senate doesn't allow filibusters on a variety of issues - bills involving budget resolution and reconciliation for example - but 'busters concerning legislative issues will be allowed for as long as laws are written and rewritten.

I have to admit I'm not too crazy about these 10 nominees that Bush is trying to push through, but this temper tantrum that some of the Dems are pulling is pretty silly. Those saying they'll force a complete Senatorial shutdown make a pretty weak threat, considering these are the same people who after the election promised to stop every item Bush sends to the floor no matter what. You won't work with the Repubs on any issue aside from those concerning "essential operations"? Boy, that will be a change.

[Jenks]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

but this temper tantrum that some of the Dems are pulling is pretty silly.

typical dems.

[Yao]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

It sounds totally childish to settle legal matters that way...

[toasty]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

It sounds totally childish to settle legal matters that way...

Hard to disagree with that, which is part of the reason that people don't ACTUALLY filibuster much anymore, they just threaten to and it does the job, to help preserve some dignity in the process. I've always thought it would be funny to watch "The Distinguished Gentleman From Wherever" taking a whiz in a bucket while reading "The Cat in the Hat" or something just to prevent a vote. One of the funniest procedural tools at their disposal, no question.

But it is that -- a tool. And if that's what it takes to get the job done, so be it. Most of Bush's nominees have essentially been rubber stamped and even those that have been grilled have still passed, with the exception of these 10 hardline judges. If they filibustered every single nomination, I think it would look obstructionist, but to say, "we'll give you the other 200+ without opposition, but we really have a problem with these 10" is credible, I think. Isn't that what "with the advice and consent of the Senate" is all about?

[Yao]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

Agreed.

[BSully828]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

Some interesting thoughts on the matter from the Dems themselves:

Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down?.And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)
Joseph Biden (D-DE) "everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a ? vote on the floor." (Cong. Rec., 3/19/97, S2540)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) "If our ? colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Cong. Rec., 2/3/98, S292)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) "Let's bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/11/97, S9165)
Tom Daschle (D-SD) "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination." (Cong. Rec., 10/5/99, S11919)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) "I have stated over and over again ? that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported." (Cong. Rec, 6/18/98, S6521)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) The filibuster "has unfortunately become a commonplace tactic to thwart the will of the majority." (Cong. Rec., 1/4/95, S36)

Link to the Article

[toasty]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

Democrats said the same thing republicans say now when they were in the majority? I can't imagine a bunch of politicians changing their position on an issue like that... Let me guess -- these comments were made in the context of a threatened republican filibuster?

I actually doubt that this will ever come to pass though, because deep down, all the senators know that the filibuster/cloture rule serves a useful purpose and that there will come a time when they need it. The republicans surely haven't forgotten what it feels like to be in the minority, have they?

[toasty]

Re: Senate Prepares for "Nuclear Option"

Looks like McCain has come out against changing the rules in this fashion, making him the third republican to do so in the recent past. Good to see there are some people with some sense on the right. If the momentum continues, it looks unlikely the rule change could be pushed through...