« DeLay Roundup | Main | Google Maps Fun »

April 8, 2005
The Nuclear Option Explained

You may have heard that Senate Republicans are threatening to invoke "the nuclear option" to prevent Democrats from opposing President Bush's judicial nominees. You've probably heard that this is not something we want to happen, or could deduce that from its name.

Here's a nice and simple explanation of how this procedural trickery works and what it would accomplish, from the Progress Report, with help from the People for the American Way.

If at least 41 senators strongly oppose a bill or nominee, they can decide to indefinitely extend debate, blocking a final vote on the issue. That's a filibuster. All it takes is 60 senators to vote the debate is over, and the bill/nominee is sent to the floor. What's the "nuclear option"? Right-wing senators want to change the long-standing rule so a simple majority can end the debate (meaning they could easily stop all filibusters). To change Senate rules, however, you have to have two-thirds of your colleagues behind you. (This ensures one party can't politicize Senate procedure.) In this case, the right wing doesn't have the required 67 senators on its side. Thus, it's time for procedural trickery known as the "nuclear option." Once the next filibuster is set in motion, probably over one of the more extremist judicial nominees, a right-wing senator wanting to activate the "nuclear option" would object, "claiming that the filibuster cannot be used on a judicial nomination." The Senate leader would rule in his favor. That ruling would be appealed, and only a simple majority would be needed to uphold that ruling which, in effect, would change the rule itself. Procedure averted, rule changed, and it all happens without needing two-thirds on your side.

Progress Report

So, basically, Republicans are trying to change a 200 year old rule in the Senate by exploiting a technicality in the rules. Does that seem right to you?

They justify this insanity by claiming that Democrats are unfairly blocking President Bush's nominations, thus making it hard to fill the federal courts with right-wing nutjobs. This is, of course, a load of crap. In fact, during his first term President Bush sent 214 nominees to the Senate, Democrats filibustered only 10. From 1995-2000, Senate Republicans blocked 35% of Clinton's nominees. (Source 1, Source 2)

The role of Congress in the judicial nomination process is to advise and consent. Republicans would like to ignore the "consent" part and just have Congress rubber-stamp every nomination. As usual, their shortsightedness and arrogance is extraordinary. They truly believe that they will forever be the majority, and if they get away with this kind of thing, they may just be.

Posted by ahecht at April 8, 2005 9:43 AM
Comments

Previous Comments

One party rule... hmmm... where have I seen that bef...

Oh yes, CCCP!

Sad!

Posted by: Kevin at April 8, 2005 11:40 AM