Nuclear Option in the Senate

Published on May 10, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations. If that is true, many more judicial nominations under Clinton never got an up or down vote because they were bottled up in committee. If the objective is an UP or DOWN vote, the tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton administration to prevent a vote through committee is just as much of a problem is holding up a vote in the Senate through filibuster. The end result is the same in both scenarios - no UP or DOWN vote.

Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.

Comments (Page 5)

Zoomba

on May 12, 2005

You've still failed to show why this rule is actually bad... The rule, not the intentions or the people... the rule as an ammendment to how the government works.

I congratulate you for completely avoiding the issue you brought up in the first place.

drmiler

on May 12, 2005

drmiler

The results I posted are as follows:

USA 56 % disapprove of Bush plan
AP-Iposs 56 Disapprove
ABC 55 % disapprove
Cnn 53% disapprove.

How do these results not prove my point?

Then how do Lee1776's not disprove your point?

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

The reason this that this is a error is that it will be used against the Republicans some day. What comes around goes around.

Island Dog

on May 12, 2005

The reason this that this is a error is that it will be used against the Republicans some day. What comes around goes around

By the time democrats regain power, robots will be running things.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

Time will tell

-----

on May 12, 2005

robots will be running things

--isn't that what liberals think neocons [ or republicans] are?

shadesofgrey

on May 12, 2005

The filibuster is a unique device that creates room for minority views to be respected within the Senate. In consociational democracies, it is called "mutual veto." By forcing a supermajority to end a filibuster, power (though limited) is given to the minority. The filibuster ensures that minority views are presented and heard. To remove it, even if only limited to judicial nominess, would make the Senate less deliberative.

Remember, even though these Senators were elected by majority vote--there are still many people living in their district who do not necessarily agree with them, but who they are charged with representing nonetheless.

The filibuster has been adopted as one of the "checks and balances" of the federal system--it helps to keep politics moderate and does not allow any extreme to dominate unbridled.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

shadesofgrey

You said what I was getting at very well. The conservatives do not care about "Checks and Balances". it is all about them having it their way. History will not look back with favor on this change if it happens!

drmiler

on May 12, 2005

It just seems funny to me that the fillibuster was "never" used on judical nominees until GW took office. Now that they want to stop that BS everyones hollering about it. I've even heard it called unconstitutional.

Lee1776

on May 12, 2005

The filibuster has been adopted as one of the "checks and balances" of the federal system--it helps to keep politics moderate and does not allow any extreme to dominate unbridled.

But by not letting votes to reach the floor, where it should be debated, your letting those with minority extremes to dominate what is debated. While you’re arguing prevention of one extreme that is in the majority, your letting another extreme that is in the minority to dominate unbridled. Something that is not in the Constitution as a check and balance. If you can find it, please show me.

IMO what is left of the Democrat party is now extreme. All the moderates have fled that party already.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

The GOP prevented Clinton nominations by stopping them in committee. The end result was the same--NO UP or Down Vote

drmiler

on May 12, 2005

prevented Clinton nominations by stopping them in committee. The end result was the same--NO UP or Down Vote

BIG DIFFERENCE! Stopping them in committee is a time honored method and entirely different from fillibustering. But the dems have changed it to suit themselves

-----

on May 12, 2005

The GOP prevented Clinton nominations by stopping them in committee. The end result was the same--NO UP or Down Vote

--Maybe they've seen the error of their ways and have decided to get it that way so when the democrats next have to get people agreed,it will be 'fair'.....

-----

on May 12, 2005

BTW....

GOP?

COL Gene

on May 13, 2005

drmiler

WRONG. IT is Bush who is saying "Every presidential nomination dererves an UP or Down Vote. It does not matter if that UP or Dowen vote is prevented in committee or in the entire Senate.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!