Sen Bill Frist intends to use the nuclear option

[Sauron]

These fuckers are just drunk with power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar21.html

Will Republicans Go Nuclear?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A17

Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, called an urgent meeting last week with leaders of civil rights, civil liberties, environmental and women's groups. His message: The Senate faces a nuclear winter that could engulf them.

What emerged at that meeting was an order of battle that could mark American politics for years. Reid told the participants that he had learned from friendly Republican senators that Bill Frist, the majority leader, intended to push forward with what has come to be known as the "nuclear option," a fiddling with Senate rules that would block filibusters of judicial nominees.

And Reid warned the groups that the Republican effort to curb the rights of the Senate minority would not stop with judges. If Frist won on judges, Reid predicted, Republicans would be emboldened to roll other legislation through on narrow majority votes.
[...]
Under current filibuster rules, it takes 60 votes to shut off Senate debate on most subjects. That means that if the Senate's 44 Democrats stay united, they can block Bush's appointees. Republicans say it should not take 60 votes to confirm a judge.

Under the nuclear option, Republicans would use a simple majority to amend Senate Rule 22, the filibuster provision, even though the rule itself explicitly requires a two-thirds vote for any filibuster changes. They would do this by having Vice President Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, uphold a "point of order" that would have the effect of ending filibusters on judges. And it takes only a majority to uphold a point of order.

If this sounds convoluted, that's because it is a blatant effort to twist the rules and -- this ought to bother conservatives -- ignore the traditions of the Senate.

[TomJoe]

I'm sure the Republicans will never again find themselves in the position the Democrats are in, right?

There will no doubt, come a time in the future when the Republicans will wish to filibuster and they'll only have themselves to blame because they castrated the filibuster provision.

[wei yau]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I'm sure the Republicans will never again find themselves in the position the Democrats are in, right?

Actually, I think that certain Republicans don't believe this will ever happen. And it is through steps like this, as well as numerous other methods, that they will ensure this will never happen.

Although, I'm hoping that the obvious disconnect between their actions and American public opinion over the Schiavo case will prove them wrong.

[viscousmemories]

I got some e-mail from the People for the American Way requesting help to head this off.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I'm sure the Republicans will never again find themselves in the position the Democrats are in, right?

There will no doubt, come a time in the future when the Republicans will wish to filibuster and they'll only have themselves to blame because they castrated the filibuster provision.

Nonsense, they'll blame the Democrats. And the Democrats will probably let them get away with it.

[Petra]

The looks like a great organisation, vm. Nice and centrist, which is just what the US (and the whole bloody world!) needs. I was going to ask you guys to explain the filibuster and the nuclear option to me, but People For The American Way explained it nicely. Thanks.


Is this getting much airplay or editorial space in the States? Or is it just one of those stories/issues that's played very quiet and low-key? I remember people like Scarlatti mentioning Supreme Court Judge appointments prior to the Presidential election, so it's interesting to observe how these things are now being done while the nation is distracted with Schiavo, etc. How many people in the general American public are aware of the filibuster and the nuclear option, and what it really means to the foundation of your democracy and judiciary?


Verrry interesting.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by lunachick

The looks like a great organisation, vm. Nice and centrist, which is just what the US (and the whole bloody world!) needs.

Actually I got on their mailing list after signing a petitions someone here linked to a few months ago.

I was going to ask you guys to explain the filibuster and the nuclear option to me, but People For The American Way explained it nicely. Thanks.

Ironically, when I got the e-mail I was gonna post here to ask if anyone could explain it more thoroughly to me, but I found Sauron's post in a search for related threads and decided to add it here.

Is this getting much airplay or editorial space in the States? Or is it just one of those stories/issues that's played very quiet and low-key?

The TV is on in my house about 4-5 hours a week and I don't read the newspaper, so I couldn't tell ya.

I remember people like Scarlatti mentioning Supreme Court Judge appointments prior to the Presidential election, so it's interesting to observe how these things are now being done while the nation is distracted with Schiavo, etc. How many people in the general American public are aware of the filibuster and the nuclear option, and what it really means to the foundation of your democracy and judiciary?

Verrry interesting.

I only knew the filibuster by name, and thought the nuclear option meant having the ability to send ICBM's overseas. But as we all know I don't exactly have my finger on the pulse of politics in America.

[Godless Dave]

Remember how the Republican Senate treated Bill Clinton's judicial nominations? No? Good, you're not supposed to.

[viscousmemories]

Another e-mail from PFAW.org that starts:

In just two days, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will appear with the Radical Religious Right’s James Dobson and Tony Perkins in a telecast to churches nationwide. The “Justice Sunday” event will enlist their followers in Frist’s fight to eliminate the Senate filibuster...the last, best check on one-party domination.

They’re calling it “Filibuster Against the Faithful.” It’s a shameful attempt to manipulate religion for political gain, and to suggest that anybody who doesn’t share their political point of view can’t be a person of faith.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by lunachick

How many people in the general American public are aware of the filibuster and the nuclear option, and what it really means to the foundation of your democracy and judiciary?

It's getting a lot of play in the press, although for the most part, and like just about everything else, the treatment is mostly superficial, focusing on the rhetoric rather than the substance. According to the Constitution, which I don't believe very many Americans have ever read, the president nominates federal judges and they are seated with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. That's pretty much all the Constitution says about the appointment process, so it's subject to a wide degree of interpretation.

On a related note, the only court directly instituted by the Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court. The lower federal courts are "ordain[ed] and establish[ed]" by Congress and the judges on all the federal courts "shall hold their Offices during good behavior." Recently the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has raised both issues, reminding his constituents that the lower courts can be just as easily dismantled by Congress, and suggesting that "good behavior" be defined by statute.

The problem with DeLay's implications is that they interfere with the system of checks and balances and separation of powers between the three branches of government established by the underlying structure of the Constitution. Ultimately it appears that many Republicans believe the Senate should act merely as a rubber stamp for the president's judicial nominees, completely ignoring the advice and consent role explicit in the text of the Constitution.

As usual many U.S. conservatives are willing to pay lip service to the interpretive doctrines of "original intent" and "textualism" only when it serves their political purposes.

This weblog provides one of the best roundups of related stories, editorials, and judicial opinions:

How Appealing

[D. Scarlatti]

Also, here are a couple of columns by conservatives decrying the antics of DeLay and other Republican wingnuts:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) ... suggested a connection between "some recent episodes of courthouse violence" and judicial activism -- as if courtroom gunmen are disappointed scholars who kill in the name of Borkian originalism.

"Judicial Insanity," by Charles Krauthammer

While Congress certainly has the constitutional power, indeed responsibility, to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts to ensure that judges decide only matters that are properly within their constitutional role and expertise, restricting the jurisdiction of courts in response to unpopular decisions is an overreaction that ill-serves the long-term interests of the nation.

"Lay Off Our Judiciary," by Theodore Olson