Replies

I suppose they could just filibuster all legislation in order to stop the Senate from working? Or would the nuclear option disallow filibuster vetos on everything, not just judicial appointments?

"I suppose they could just filibuster all legislation in order to stop the Senate from working?"

That's true. But I would make sure that their 'filibuster' continuous and ON the floor.

Not like they have been doing, and just 'voting' to filibuster.

And no. The 'nuclear' option would not stop them from filibustering anything but Judicial nominations.

Open Question...Is there any precedent for filibustering judicial appointments that have cleared committie? I thought that judicial appointments were always accorded an up or down floor vote....at least until recently. Even Robert Bork (the Lefties Boogie Man) was allowed a floor vote. If the Dem's have departed from tradition, the Nuclear Option is even more appropriate.

Or would the nuclear option disallow filibuster vetos on everything, not just judicial appointments?

If you want to read about this, go HERE.

Scroll down to the Gold & Gupta article, it's all there.

The bottom line is that 51 Senators can change any Senate rule at any time, but that no Senate has ever affirmed a ruling of the chair to allow it-not even in 1967 when Hubert Humphrey had 68 RATS and 20 RINOs, he ruled that a 51% majority could change the rules on a Point of Order, and his ruling was not sustained.

You are asking United States Senators to give up the one thing that makes them more powerful and more important than any other parliamentarians on Earth.

So, you don't just need a majority on the underlying issue-you need EVERY member of your majority to agree to diminish HIS OWN POWER, permanently.

It has never been achieved, and it won't be this time, either.