[Terpfen]

Oh, FFS.

If this actually happens, the Dems will use this legal tactic whenever Republicans try to block bills that they want passed--Social Security expansion, education spending, whatever. And if anyone here remembers the 2000 election, or Torricelli in New Jersey, or any other Democrat court trick, they'll know that the Democrats are skilled with getting their way thanks to an already-packed judiciary.

This is the true "nuclear option," and I for one do NOT support it.

[wimpycat]

I don't think the Dems can use the same tactic if the Republicans block their legislation. Graham's legal argument rises out of the "advice and consent" portion of the Constitution, specifically. Regular legislation doesn't fall under that clause.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The Dems could perhaps use the same legal tactic if the Republicans tried to block the nomination of an Ambassador or Cabinet Member, or perhaps block a treaty, but the Supreme Court would laugh in their faces if they tried to use it for other things.

What I think would happen, though, if Graham won his case, is that the actual procedural rule might be ruled un-Constitutional (60 votes to invoke cloture)--either all together, or maybe only with respect to the nominations mentioned in the "advice and consent" clause.