Use the nuclear option

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/12/05 | Henry Lamb

[wagglebee]

It's just plain wrong for a handful of senators – Democrats or Republicans – to prevent the Senate from voting on any presidential nomination. The Constitution is abundantly clear: the president is empowered to nominate officials and judges; the Senate is required to "advise and consent" – or not. The Senate is not authorized to manufacture a procedural obstacle course that prevents the body from voting on the president's nominees.

Senate Democrats successfully blocked a vote on 10 presidential nominations during president Bush's first term. They are preparing to do the same thing in the second term. The remedy is simple: The Republican majority can change the Senate rules to exempt presidential nominations from filibuster. Democrats call this remedy the "nuclear option" and vow they will bring all Senate action to a screeching halt if the Republicans do it.

Were the shoe on the other foot, and Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they would not hesitate one minute to change the rules to prevent a minority filibuster of presidential nominations. Senate Republicans should immediately change the rules so every presidential nomination is quickly and thoroughly reviewed in committee, fully debated on the Senate floor and decided by a recorded vote.

This procedure should prevail, without respect for which party is in power.

Majority Leader Bill Frist's threat to use this "nuclear option" enraged Senate Democrats. In an unusually eloquent tirade, Sen. Robert Byrd compared the Republicans' threat to change the rules to Hitler's regime: "Hitler turned the law inside out and made illegality legal. That is what the nuclear option seeks to do."

In 1979, however, when the shoe was on the other foot, Byrd told a Democrat Senate majority: "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past ..." and proceeded to lead the Senate to several rule changes to prevent a Republican minority from blocking presidential nominations.

In truth, it is the filibuster rule that makes illegality legal. The Supreme Court has consistently held that except for the supermajority votes required by the Constitution (treaties, veto override, constitutional amendments), all other votes require only a simple majority. The Constitution does not specify a supermajority for presidential nominations. A Senate rule that effectively requires a supermajority is, on its face, unconstitutional.

The Republican majority should change this rule immediately – and live with it, when they are not in the majority.

Democrats will, no doubt, scream, cry foul and try to get even. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said if Republicans try to use the nuclear option, "they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."

Democrats have developed a pattern of acting like spoiled children when they don't get their way. If they make good on Reid's promise to "screw things up" and block important legislation in this session of Congress, Republicans could very well increase their majority in the 2006 elections. Voters everywhere are weary of the whining and petty partisan reaction to everything a Republican says.

The nuclear option should be a simple matter, with Republicans holding the majority in the Senate. It is not. A few liberal New England Republicans rarely let the Constitution influence their votes. Sens. McCain, Hagel and Specter have also expressed reluctance to confront the Democrats on this issue. Majority Leader Frist has said that "one way or the other," presidential nominations will be removed from the filibuster. Now is the time to do it.

Delay in confronting this issue will only postpone and intensify the Democrats' determination to "screw things up." It is far better get it over with, with the first judicial nominee, than to waste time playing procedural games to gain political advantage. If the rules are changed now, it will change the nature of the battle when it comes to the inevitable nomination of a Supreme Court judge.

Without the filibuster foolishness in the way, perhaps the debate will focus on real issues and qualifications, rather than procedural one-upsmanship.

Republicans who have neither the stomach for confrontation nor the conviction of constitutional responsibility should be rounded up by the leadership -- and retrained. There are too many urgent issues to be resolved by this Congress, to let partisan politics get in the way.

The Democrats will scream, holler, stomp their feet and try to get even. They have not yet learned that no one gets ahead by getting even.

[wagglebee]

In truth, it is the filibuster rule that makes illegality legal. The Supreme Court has consistently held that except for the supermajority votes required by the Constitution (treaties, veto override, constitutional amendments), all other votes require only a simple majority. The Constitution does not specify a supermajority for presidential nominations. A Senate rule that effectively requires a supermajority is, on its face, unconstitutional.

Bill Frist needs to say this publicly and often!

[Texas Eagle]

In 1979, however, when the shoe was on the other foot, Byrd told a Democrat Senate majority: "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past ..." and proceeded to lead the Senate to several rule changes to prevent a Republican minority from blocking presidential nominations.

Okay. Bill FRist should refer to this as The Byrd Option.

[Tax Government]

Democrats call this remedy the "nuclear option" and vow they will bring all Senate action to a screeching halt if the Republicans do it.

Bring it on. May the enemy within -- democrat politicians and their political "machine" -- burn in hell.

[wagglebee]

I though THIS was the Byrd option:

[HP8753]

Bill Frist needs to say this publicly and often!

It won't happen,Frist has been taking ankle grabbing lessons from Trent Lott.

[Wheens]

As Rush says two things will sink the Republicans if they don't listen to their constituancy: appointment of conservative judges & immigration.

[Archon of the East]

I've said it before I'll say it again if the Dims were in the same position there would be no question they would do whatever it took. IMO If the nuclear option is necessary it will be used. Why rattle cages before any obstruction has occurred (this time). I do agree a message needs to be sent that obstruction has not ever occurred with judicial nominations in the history of the US and this should be expressed vocally daily by members of congress!

[Nuc1]

Good post. I agree let's get it done and who cares what the RATS think or do. If we follow this path we will win big in 2006. If we don't we will not be as successful as we could be and may actually loose seats. I am worried that we don't really have the votes because Frist hasn't held the vote yet.

Perhaps, there is an effort to use the issue as a way coercing RATS into supporting other policies. If so I think this is the wrong thing to do. The judiciary is the greatest threat to our freedom that this country ever faced and we must confront and correct it. Further, it smacks of intrigue and business as usual in DC. To continue to be perceived as actually believing in what we say, we must be different. We must stand for truth, justice, and the American way (no superman cracks please).

I have watched the radical left attack this country, its heritage, and values since the sixties. In 1968 the Democratic party surrendered itself to these same radicals. And for forty or so years they have had their way. Greatly aided by the courts. At long last, the decent people of the United States have the chance to finally turn the tide. We finally have the keys to government so...what are we waiting for. I urge our leaders to attack the liberals with all means available, to use force and maneuver to confound and confuse them, to begin the restoration of America, and this...this nuclear option is the key to defeating them in detail. To our members of congress I advise you not to betray us again. I don't have to vote, I can stay home. Republicans, mount up and move out we have much work to do.

[rllngrk33]

I say the RATs should be forced into an actula filibuster where they try and keep talking. Then use the "nuclear option".

[Archon of the East]

I do believe that is what will happen. Remember it is still Politics and games must played. The strategy is potentially very interesting do you sneak a few easy one's through that they won't necessarily filibuster first or do you go for jugular and expose their obstructionist tactics right away? The only thing I'm afraid of is that there isn't going to be enough SCOTUS justices retiring in the next 4 years. i believe Ginsberg and Kennedy will hold on as long as possible until friendlier conditions exist. thus I feel its up to us to put pressure on our congress to discuss impeachment!

[theDentist]

I fully agree. They were talking about this option mid-way thru Dubya's first term, but frist, like his predecessor, lacks the testicular fortitude that the majority leader requires. I have no doubt, if positions were reversed, the Dems would have done so without a moment's delay or second thought.

C'mon Frist! Grow a pair!!

[Texas Songwriter]

If Frist blinks now, he has no presidential possibilities, which is where he wants to go. It would be the right thing to do to give an up or down vote......just advise and consent, like the constitution states. In the beginning of this country, there was no Judiciary commmittee of the senate.

[hosepipe]

[ The Republican majority should change this rule immediately – and live with it, when they are not in the majority. ]

The democrats will do it anyway when Hillary is elected in 2008.. count on it.. They will not hem and haw they will just do it.. you don't like it, talk to the hand.. Its only republicans that bleed over being "fair"... Democrats never have or will.. Never happen though, "the nuclear option".. there over 50 republican Senators will a grand total of three balls between them, and two of those three are NOT on any one Senator either.. They are lazy and sleep alot, Republican Senators.. Democrats are crazy as moonbats but are willing to breed.. even with a snake if they can get someone to hold the head..

May I be the first to say the election in 2008 will be the most important in American History..

[freedomson]

May I be the first to say the election in 2008 will be the most important in American History..

13 posted on 03/12/2005 10:08:13 PM EST by hosepipe (This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[hosepipe]

LoL...
Be said many times to get John McLaim or Giuliani elected.. Selling RINOs isn't an easy sell.. Gotta resort to that to get the old clothes pin on the nose thingy going..

[international american]

"Republicans who have neither the stomach for confrontation nor the conviction of constitutional responsibility "

Nuff said, until proven wrong!!

[CyberAnt]

I agree Bill needs to say that often. It's the most accurate account of what the democrats have been doing.

[John Lenin]

Sen KKK Byrd used the nuclear option many times, the GOP should return the favor, especially on judges.

[harpo11]

Bring on the GOP Stallions
A Growl of Defiance in Defense of Our Constitution

[Non-Sequitur]

Senate Democrats successfully blocked a vote on 10 presidential nominations during president Bush's first term. They are preparing to do the same thing in the second term.

And how many Clinton appointees did the GOP block in committee or keep from getting to the floor after they were voted out of committee. The Democrats have their tactics and we had ours.

The remedy is simple: The Republican majority can change the Senate rules to exempt presidential nominations from filibuster. Democrats call this remedy the "nuclear option" and vow they will bring all Senate action to a screeching halt if the Republicans do it.

Actually I thought that the 'Nuclear Option' was having the Vice President rule the fillibuster unconstitutional. Changing the Senate rules should be a no-brainer. It is the proper way of dealing with the issue and can be done with 51 votes. But Frist can't get 51 votes to do it. That is the real question here. Why can't he?