[Theodore R.]

I read an op-ed a few days ago in which former Senator Helms warns that the "nuclear option" is a bad idea. Helms said that we would have federal funding of all abortions for "the poor" without the Senate filibuster. There are other situations where the filibuster defeats liberals too. He said that giving up the filibuster to gain typical judges John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, or Anthony Kennedy is madness. He made me think twice about the "nuclear option." Helms said that we can't stop filibusters on judicial nominees and retain it on other matters, but I don't know whey we could not.

[Theodore R.]

The article by Helms seemed reconciled to the view that few conservatives are likely to be appointed or confirmed by the Senate in the next few years.

[Non-Sequitur]

Helms said that we can't stop filibusters on judicial nominees and retain it on other matters, but I don't know whey we could not.

Because you can't say a Senate rule is illegal under one set of circumstances and legal under another.

[Congressman Billybob]

Helms is losing it. Ending the filibuster for judicial appointments has NOTHING to do with use of the filibuster on legislative matters. The "nuclear" option should properly be called the "constitutional" one. It merely enforces the Advise and Consent Clause for majority vote for judges.

Establishing that will NOT terminate the general application of Senate Rule XXII, which establishes the Cloture Rule. If something written in Helms' name says anything different, it was wrong.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "By Dawn's Early Light"