Democrats Warn GOP on Using 'Nuclear Option'

AP ^ | 1-16-05

[inquest]

WASHINGTON — The Senate's Democratic leader said Sunday that Republicans "would rue the day" if they try to make it harder for Democrats to stall judicial nominees who could not get a vote last year. But Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he hoped a new "optimistic" climate would take hold now that Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is the top Democrat, succeeding the defeated Tom Daschle of South Dakota, whom the GOP labeled an obstructionist.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, the Dems have done the same thing in the past, and to my knowledge, no court heard any case.

When?

[rwfromkansas]

Even if true, the courts would not intervene. That would be a political firestorm no judge would have the balls to get involved in.

[rwfromkansas]

1975

[af_vet_1981]

Such a ruling would be incorrect.

The Senate makes its own rulings and rules.

If adopted, it is by definition correct.

[Non-Sequitur]

Even if true, the courts would not intervene. That would be a political firestorm no judge would have the balls to get involved in.

I wish I could be so sure. I can't imagine any Supreme Court allowing the legislative branch to rule something is unconstitutional.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. Here in Tennessee, the GOP took "control" of the state Senate for the first time ever. What was their first move? Two idiot RINO's decided that their loyalty belonged with the prior DEMOCRAT speaker of the senate and they voted for him saying that they voted for him because he was "fair". What did the GOP get for their loyalty tot he 'Rats? NOTHING! The speaker appointed 'Rats as the heads of the most powerful committees and appointed a majority of 'Rats to be in them.

[Non-Sequitur]

1975

Keep going. What did the senate rule unconstitutional?

[deport]

No, but if the Vice-President rules that filibustering judicial nominations is unconstitutional then you can expect the court to take it up in a heart-beat.

---

Why do you think he'd rule on the Constitutionality when all he's addressing is the Senate rules?..... Why get off in left field when it isn't necessary?

[KoRn]

"Frist can't let the RATS set the tone for the debate. Every time they call it "the nuclear option", he should respond with, "This is the Constitutional option."

Great idea! Too bad the R's in the Senate tend to be somewhat incompetent in the area of message and organization.

When the DIMs are in control of the Senate, the Senate works against us. When Republicans are in control it doesn't work for us.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why do you think he'd rule on the Constitutionality when all he's addressing is the Senate rules?..... Why get off in left field when it isn't necessary?

Well he can't rule it's in violation of Senate rules since they don't limit filibuster to non-judicial nominations.

[MissouriConservative]

Here is how it works......

This is the so-called "nuclear option."

The way this procedural maneuver would work — as it did in 1975 — would be that, at the time of a cloture vote to end debate, the Senate majority would secure a ruling from the chair that Standing Rule XXII does not apply. The chair, likely the Vice President, would probably agree and rule in favor of the majority. The issue would then be brought to a vote, and the minority, probably through the Minority Leader, would note that the issue is debatable and, hence, also subject to a filibuster.

The parliamentarian, relying on Senate precedent, would agree. The chair would then recognize a non-debatable motion to table. At this point, the majority could overrule the anti-majoritarian precedent, uphold the ruling of the chair, and proceed to a final yea-or-nay vote on the original question by securing a simple majority vote in favor of the motion to table.

If all that seems complex, it is. But the basic import of such procedural maneuvering is that a simple majority of the current Senate can force a change in Rule XXII to reduce the supermajoritarian cloture requirement, thus making it possible to end debate by simple majority vote.

With a Senate minority now obstructing up-or-down floor votes on several judicial nominations and other nominations languishing for hundreds of days under the threat of filibusters, all while there is a vacancy crisis plaguing the federal appellate bench, the time has certainly come for the Senate majority to seriously consider re-exercising the "nuclear option."

The irony is that the very majoritarian rule suggested by the text of the Constitution is deemed "nuclear" by those who have sworn an oath to uphold "the supreme Law of the Land."

The Nuclear Option

[Non-Sequitur]

But the basic import of such procedural maneuvering is that a simple majority of the current Senate can force a change in Rule XXII to reduce the supermajoritarian cloture requirement, thus making it possible to end debate by simple majority vote.

If Frist can't get a simple majority to change Rule 22 in the first place what makes you think he can get a majority to uphold the vice-president's ruling?

[MissouriConservative]

That's not up to me to answer. It is up to Frist to ensure that a simple majority of Republicans will be there to uphold the ruling from the chair.

Now whether or not Frist can do that has yet to be determined. My post simple states what they need to do. Personally, I think they should drop the nuke and begin to act like the majority party. The democrats say that Republicans would "rue the day" if they did but we all know that is just bluster...the democrats would not hesitate as much as Frist has been. They would simply do what they needed to do to get their President's nominations voted on.

[rwfromkansas]

"If Mr. Frist and his fellow Republicans use the option, they can thank some of the very Democrats leading today's filibusters for paving the way 25 years ago.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and influential member of the committee, were among those who voted in 1975 to force changes to Senate rules with a majority vote.
At issue in 1975 was a growing consensus in the Senate that a 67-vote requirement for breaking filibusters was too onerous. Democrats reduced that requirement to 60 using the bare-majority nuclear option.
"We cannot allow a minority, a small group of members, to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there," Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, Montana Democrat, said at the time.
But when senators thought up the nuclear option, many supporters -- including Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat -- backed away, hoping instead to find a more proper way to make the changes.
In the years leading up to the 1975 vote, Mr. Byrd cautioned his colleagues in the Democratic majority: "The day may come, although I hope it will not be in my time, when we will be in the minority and it will take only 51 senators from the other side of the aisle to stop debate immediately, without one word, on some matter which we may consider vital to our states or to the nation."
By February of 1975, frustration about the filibusters had grown so intense that a majority of senators, mostly Democrats, favored using the nuclear option. They pointed to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, which reads, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."
So in a series of votes on complex parliamentary procedures in the winter and spring of 1975, the Senate established its right to set and alter the rules of the Senate with a simple majority vote, free from the threat of filibusters.
In the end, the requirement to break filibusters was lowered to 60 votes.
In addition to Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Byrd, Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Delaware Democrat, and Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, also supported the change.
But it didn't come without a cost.
Bob Dove, who was assistant Senate parliamentarian at the time, called it an "ugly, ugly scene."
As the crucial votes were taken, Sen. James B. Allen, Alabama Democrat, rose to speak. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, who came over to the Senate to preside over the contentious proceedings, repeatedly ignored Mr. Allen from the chair.
"What is this? Is this still the Senate of the United States," asked Sen. Russell Long, Louisiana Democrat, who died last week. "Is this the place that I wanted to serve from the days I sat there in that gallery and was 12 years old? Or is this some place where we are going to rule by the rule of might makes right?"
In the past several months, the idea of using the procedure has gained momentum with Democrats conducting simultaneous filibusters on two of Mr. Bush's nominees -- Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, nominated to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."

Note that several of the people opposing it this time pushed for it then.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030513-104057-4994r.htm

[Caipirabob]

What are they going to do? Mass market false propaganda, give aid and comfort to enemies of this nation and call the President Chimpy?

[sweetliberty]

"I don't care what "options" are used to get judicial appointees approved. Just get it done."

Amen to that. Who the h*ll do these people think they are anyway? Sounds to me like they're making threats if we don't let them call the shots even though we are the majority. Screw them!

[sweetliberty]

We've put up with this sh*t off them for 4 years. It is high d**n time that Frist tells these spoiled, whining brats to sit down, STFU and let the grown-ups do their job!

[tarheelswamprat]

Actually, it's being mis-labeled by the leftist media (like AP). It's not the "nuclear" option, it's the constitutional option.

Thank you! I've been hoping someone would point this out. However, it's not just the MSM who is to blame. It's a shame the Republicans don't have the sense to explain it this way.

[deport]

Well he can't rule it's in violation of Senate rules since they don't limit filibuster to non-judicial nominations.

---

Why can't he?..... whose going to over rule him?.... The SCOTUS isn't going to step into a Senate rules agrument....

Frist also reserved the right to address rule changes later on if he deemed it necessary.

[Non-Sequitur]

Apples and oranges. The Senate, in that case, actually voted to change Rule 22. They didnn't use the Vice-President to rule on the the consititutionality of a rule. I would rather see Frist change the rules than resort to a bogus ruling from the chair. Because if Frist doesn't have the votes to change the rule in the first place how can he expect to get enough votes to uphold the Vice-President's ruling?