Time for the Democrats to threaten the "nuclear option"?

Nuclear Free Zone (0.00 / 0)

Looks like Senate Republicans learned a something from the minority party of the 109th - who mastered the art of obstruction - blocking among other things a minimum wage hike that they didn't want passed in the waning days of 2006 for obvious political reasons.

And just to clarify, the "Nuclear Option" isn't an option for regular legislation.  What? you say.  But this is the same as what Republicans were doing in 2005-6!  Not quite.  You heard Republicans talking about removing the filibuster for nominations (specifically judicial nominations to the Supreme Court).  A nomination is handled differently in the Constitution than legislation.

Let's back up and look at what a filibuster is.  In the Senate, unlike the House, debate is unlimited.  The provision to end debate - and force a vote - is called cloture and it needs 60 votes.  Failure to invoke cloture results in the failure to cast a vote.

The Constitution says that the President must seek the advice and consent of the Senate for his/her nominees - more or less establishing a Constitutional requirement for an "up or down vote."  Said vote is different from a vote on legislation because it is privileged.  The Senate cannot abdicate their responsibility to fulfill this Constitutional duty.  The rule requiring cloture for these nominations is established by special rules within each Senate decided by the majority party every two years.  So when Senate Republicans talked about the "Nuclear Option" last year, they weren't suggesting the elimination of endless debate (an end to all filibusters); they were instead talking about changing the special rule addressing the privileged vote of nominee confirmation.

In essence, there is no "nuclear option" for what you are referring to.  Senate Dems cannot revoke the fillubuster.

But even if there was, a veto-override would require more votes than cloture, so unless legislation passed by a larger margin than they'd need for cloture anyway, eliminating the filibuster wouldn't result in more Democrat laws passing.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 22:46:25 PM UTC

thanks for the correction... (0.00 / 0)

you are, of course, correct about the "nuclear option" being reserved for judicial nominations...

sighs

However, calling the 109th Congressional Democrats "obstructionists" is, er, misleading...at best. I realize you're a partisan hack, but let's agree to stick with reality, okay? We're all political junkies here, we know what a filibuster is, what cloture is, and how the GOP is behaving compared to previous minority parties.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 00:12:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: Shameless (0.00 / 0)

I realize you're a partisan hack, but let's agree to stick with reality, okay? We're all political junkies here, we know what a filibuster is, what cloture is, and how the GOP is behaving compared to previous minority parties.

Obviously "we" don't all know what a filibuster, cloture, or the so-called "nuclear option" is because you just spent an entire post speaking with your vocal cords emplanted deep in your rectum. Embarrasing? Should be.  

---

by: Rich @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 00:26:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ah, enter the clowns (0.00 / 0)

thanks, rich, for reminding our readers what a d*ck you are.

I admit I forgot the nuclear option was only for judicial nominations and corrected myself in the post. Sorry I ain't perfect.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 00:39:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

uh-huh (0.00 / 0)

I admit I forgot the nuclear option was only for judicial nominations and corrected myself in the post. Sorry I ain't perfect.

No one's perfect Stevens, at least that I'm aware of. It's just that most don't attempt to obviously cover themselves by claiming they "forgot the nuclear option was only for judicial nominations" when it's fairly obvious from the start you didn't.

thanks, rich, for reminding our readers what a d*ck you are.

Not even man enough to spell the word out, are you? In any case, you're welcome. Thanks for allowing others the opportunity to remind the readers that you don't really have a clue what you're talking about!

---

by: Rich @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:24:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

actually... (0.00 / 0)

...I did write on this way back. So I knew it then.

However, a quick Google search on the "nuclear option" shows that a simple majority in the Senate can change the procedural rules on cloture and reduce the number of votes need to end a filibuster, and not just for judicial nominations. The Senate did so in 1975, reducing the number of votes needed for cloture from 67 to 60.

So MTSentinel was wrong. However, I do admit I was referring to the "nuclear option" bandied about by the GOP in 2005, which did refer to judicial nominations. Wheee!

As for the asterisks: I don't want your work filter to keep you from following the blog, Rich!

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 16:51:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and another thing! (0.00 / 0)

I'm not quite sure I understand your point, rich. Are you saying it's okay for MTSentinel to distort Congressional records to flatter his party because I'm an idiot?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 00:42:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: and another thing! (0.00 / 0)

Please refer to MTSentinel's two replies below. It seems less likely that MTSentinel is distorting the record of the Democratic congress in view that their approval ratings are half of that of President Bush.

You are corect in one regard though. You are an idiot, and not a very useful one to boot.

---

by: Rich @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:27:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the facts, Rich (0.00 / 0)

Congress has an approval rating at about 20%. The Democrats have a favorable rating in the upper 40s, compared to Republicans' in the low 30s.

MtSentinel deliberately and falsely distored the realities of the 109th Congress. In this session, the GOP has already far exceeded the number of filibusters the Dems did in 2005-6, and we're only halfway to the end of the current session.

He also implied the Dems blocked a minimum wage hike so they could use as an issue in the 2006 election, but failed to mention it was tied to the Estate Tax repeal, and done so to ensure the bill's failure.

MtSentinel is spinning, dude. I'm sorry you believe him.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 16:47:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ouch! (0.00 / 0)

Aww, Jai.  I'm sorry to that I keep misspelling your name, but as a guest at your site, I'm hurt that you resort to name calling ("partisan hack" of course is a phrase that could equally be levied at you).  Considering that posts that I comment on tend to have more comments that one's I don't, I'd think that you'd welcome my contribution if for no other reason than to just demonstrate in point of fact why we Conservatives are so wrong!

You tell me: In the 109th the GOP controlled the Executive, and both chambers of the Congress.  The Supreme Court did not strike any 109th Legislation down as unconstitutional.

Even so, the 109th was appropriately labeled as a "do nothing Congress" - a phrase that is currently haunting the Democrat majority.  If not for Democrat obstruction, please tell me what it was that prevented Republicans from enacting any policy they wanted?  With majority control of the entire legislative machine, what was the barrier - save obstructionism - to Republican domination?

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:10:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're assuming... (0.00 / 0)

...that Bush would veto every piece of legislation that would be passed by Congress. Even if he did, conventional wisdom says that works against the President's party, 'cause vetoes draw headlines, esp. when it's of popular legislation like the SCHIP bill.

As for the "do nothing" label...well...if you go and count the Democratic-led filibusters, you'll see it had nothing to do with Democratic obstructionism.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 16:40:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and one last thing... (0.00 / 0)

Even if you hadn't forgotten the context of the nuclear option, you still haven't explained how eliminating the filibuster would help Democrats.

Votes needed invoke cloture (ending a filibuster): 60.

Votes needed to override a veto: 67.

Eliminating the filibuster doesn't get your bills passed.

The solution to the frustration that you are experiencing is and ugly little thing bi-partisanship (remember when Reid and Pelosi were campaigning on that word?).  Instead of passing bills out of committee strictly on party-lines and then refusing to allow amendments on the floor, work with the opposition to come up with legislation that actually has a chance being signed into law.  You may be surprised to learn that Republicans don't oppose things like SCHIP or (in fact, it was a Republican majority that created SCHIP) if you work with Republicans to pass legislation that can earn bi-partisan support.

Alternatively, keep your majority in the House and win 60 seats in the Senate as well as the White House and you can tell the minority where to stick it.

---

by: MTSentinel @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:29:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]