Actually, I think what they are doing is looking for a way to get these people confirmed. It's what they've been trying to do within the rules all along. The Rats have hung together and tough which leaves ONLY A RULE change to beat them.
I'd much rather let the Rats have their whiney issue than to let them have the Supreme Court.
ShowMeMom wrote:Actually, there hasn't been a cloture vote on the Priscilla Owen nomination during this session.
Actually, I think what they are doing is looking for a way to get these people confirmed. It's what they've been trying to do within the rules all along.
I guess what I'm saying is that in the eyes of the public, these nominees should get an up or down vote, but right now, support for the "nuclear option" is pretty thin overall.
Why not say, "This cloture vote is on closing debate on the Owen nomination. If it passes, we will vote on the confirmation of Priscilla Owen. If it fails, we will debate for two more days and have another cloture vote. But we won't move on to other business until the Owen nomination is disposed of. No rules changes will be made immediately after this vote."
If you do that, the Dems don't get any hope that they can damage the Republicans with the "nuclear option" if they vote against cloture. Actually, during this debate, the Republicans should have concentrated on the merits of Priscilla Owen and on the duty of the Senate to provide advice and consent, and on the past statements of all the Dems about how judicial appointments shouldn't be filibustered. But we've had a week primarily debating the rules of the Senate.
Personally, I think if the debate is presented right, a continuation of the filibuster will hurt the Dems more than the Republicans right now. And the "nuclear option" can definitely hurt the Republicans in the long run. If that is presented as a "power grab" by the media, it could hurt a lot.
Having said that, I expect the Dems would rather have the "power grab" rhetoric on a SC nominee than on Priscilla Owen.
ShowMeMom wrote:Well, I would agree with you there. But please explain to me how the "nuclear option" doesn't just clear the deck for Chief Justice nominee Hillary Clinton if the Dems can get the Presidency and a 50/50 or better majority in the Senate in some future election.
I'd much rather let the Rats have their whiney issue than to let them have the Supreme Court.
It seems to me that the "nuclear option" gives the Supreme Court to whichever party can win the Presidency with enough coat tails to get 50 or more Senate seats. I'm not entirely sure that's always a good thing.