[Mike10542]

The nuclear option was only suppossed to be for judicial nominee, but as this vote just showed, we should make it for all presidential appointees. After all, the basis against filibustering for a judicial nominees comes from a passage in the constitution that applies to all nominees.

[lawdude]

"The nuclear option was only suppossed to be for judicial nominee,..."

Did you read the 'agreement'?

[John Valentine]

The nuclear option was only suppossed to be for judicial nominee, but as this vote just showed, we should make it for all presidential appointees. After all, the basis against filibustering for a judicial nominees comes from a passage in the constitution that applies to all nominees.

One of the core arguments that Democrats use to try to justify the filibuster against judicial appointments is that they are lifetime appointments and herefore oughtto be subject to special scrutiny. That argument does not hold water in the case of diplomatic appointments.

I'd say that right now would be a good time to rule that the filibuster is not permitted for advise and consent votes of any kind.

[TheDon]

Agreed. The Rats need to be put in their place.

[Royal Wulff]

Also, if filibustering judicial nominees is (rightly) considered improper, that goes double for executive branch nominees. The judiciary is an independent branch of government. Executive nominees serve under the President, in the branch of government he is responsible for. He should have an even greater prerogative to have his nominees voted on.

[Ulysses]

The nuclear option was only suppossed to be for judicial nominee, but as this vote just showed, we should make it for all presidential appointees. After all, the basis against filibustering for a judicial nominees comes from a passage in the constitution that applies to all nominees.

Good call, Mike.

Back in 1993, when then-President Clinton was appointing his Cabinet and other officials, I wrote a letter to then-Georgia-Senator Sam Nunn, opposing one or another of the Clinton appointees.

Now, of course, Senator Nunn was Democrat with a capital D, but I believe he was an honorable man. He responded in a letter that said something to the effect of "Whether I personally like the appointee and his/her politics, the fact remains that the President is entitled to make the appointments. Thus, he ought to be entitled to get his appointees approved."

I think I remember being a bit peeved at the time, but not for long. The more I thought about it, the more Senator Nunn was right.

And he'd be right in this current context as well.

Trigger the Constitutional option if necessary to get the President's lawfully- and duly-appointed people confirmed!