Senate Nuclear option: filibuster

Crone · Post by **Crone** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:20 pm

President Bush has re-nominated seven of the 10 appeals court candidates who were previously blocked by Senate Democrats. Under Senate rules, it takes just 41 votes to prevent a vote on an issue -- including a judicial nominee. But Republicans threaten to put an end to such judicial filibusters if Democrats continue to hold up the process. If that happens, Democrats vow to disrupt all business before the chamber.

http://www.npr.org/takingissue/20050324 ... icial.html

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search) pledged Tuesday that any effort by Republicans to ban Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees would not apply to traditional filibusters that Senate rules permit the minority party to use on other legislative issues.

"There is no need for change in relation to legislative matters," Frist said in a statement issued before GOP senators met for their weekly policy meeting.

Frist was working to ensure he has 50 votes to approve a rules change that would end Democrats' ability to threaten filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominations through filibuster (search) threats and allowed confirmation of 34. Bush has re-nominated seven of the 10.

While it takes only a majority vote to change Senate rules, it takes 60 senators to end a filibuster. The Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and a Democrat-leaning independent.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada suggested last week that getting rid of the legislative filibuster could be Frist's next target if he wins on the judicial filibuster.

That concerns some conservative groups like the Gun Owners of America (search) and the National Right to Work Committee (search), which oppose a judicial filibuster ban, saying a ban on legislative filibusters might be next. They say Republicans have used legislative filibuster threats to stop antigun and pro-union legislation and that weapon is too important to lose.

But Frist's statement said he "will not act in any way to impact the rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation" or try to change Senate rules that "now provide many tools for members, and leaders, to see legislative ideas brought to an up or down vote on the Senate floor."

Also on Tuesday, the Republican National Committee announced it would join the effort to stop the Democrats, sending e-mails calling for their supporters to contact Democratic senators and urge them to stop blocking Bush's nominees.

"Call your Democratic senator and tell them to do their job and give the president's judges an up or down vote!" the e-mail said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153933,00.html

thoughts?

bort · Post by **bort** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:59 pm

i heard a funny today.

they should rename it from the "nuclear option" to something more marketable, such as "let every vote count".

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:03 pm

It's so silly. What do they hope to accomplish by filibustering? Why not just vote NO?

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:10 pm

.... American politics seem like such an inefficient process. I wish I had a better one to offer, though, but I am not a political scientist.

Crone · Post by **Crone** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:34 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="483676"]It's so silly. What do they hope to accomplish by filibustering? Why not just vote NO?[/quote]

because logistics would hand the republicans the vote with the majority and the dems need that sabo shoe?

i know im probably simplifying it, but its a tangled mess to start

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:37 pm

Yeah, God forbid the Democrats give up their stranglehold on the nation's courts.

If you can't get it passed in the Congress, have the judges legislate from the bench. It's worked well for them so far, so I guess they're desperate not to loosen their grip even a little.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:07 pm

Yeah, God forbid the Democrats give up their stranglehold on the nation's courts.

And give the 'REPUBLICANS' a stranglehold on not only the courts, but all three branches of the government?

... Yes, please, God, forbid that...

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:14 pm

Now that's just crazy talk.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:36 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="483694"] so I guess they're desperate not to loosen their grip even a little.[/quote]

Wouldn't you be if it was the only way to get your agendas passed?

bort · Post by **bort** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:24 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="483750"]

Yeah, God forbid the Democrats give up their stranglehold on the nation's courts.

And give the 'REPUBLICANS' a stranglehold on not only the courts, but all three branches of the government?

... Yes, please, God, forbid that...[/quote]

if republicans really had a stranglehold on congress, we wouldnt even be discussing this.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:25 pm

Much less the courts...

Crone · Post by **Crone** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:50 pm

Well it's going to create a serious backlash amongst the minority, but I don't even want to think about how they'll react. I mean, there are ads out about it from both sides like this was an election year, and with all the simultaneous froth over the ethics comittee row and Tom Delay this year is shaping up to be one hell of a mess.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:52 pm

Thankfully, Bort, you have a point.

It's not a strangehold, yet ... the noose is still winding.

NickGXZ · Post by **NickGXZ** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:18 pm

Dr. Tower · Post by **Dr. Tower** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm

I've played that game, it's pretty fun. Usually everbody loses (just like real nuclear war!)

Real Life Forums

Senate Nuclear option: filibuster

Senate Nuclear option: filibuster

Who is online