NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, a disclaimer.

This thread is not about WMD's. It's about fillibusters and judicial appointees. Sorry to mislead anyone, but I'll expalin the nuclear option and why it's called that shortly.

Second, this post will be slightly long. Many NS'ers are young or non-American so I'm going to explain some things in depth that some readers will already be aware of. Please bear with me. You might actually learn something, at the very least it might help you understand that fillibuster issue that your nation will eventually deal with.

Without going too deep the US government is comprised of three parts, the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The president and his cabinet comprise the executive, the two houses of congress the legislative and the federal court system and the supreme court the judicial. The President is the chief executive and his powers are similar to the CEO of any large corporation. He's in charge, sort of, limited by the charter that founded things (in this case the constitution). Congress introduces and passes laws, sounds simplistic, but that also includes any spending by the government and declarations of war, and approval of appointed offices. Which segways nicely to the judicial branch, appointed judges who sit for indefinate terms and who interpret and rule on laws and the constitution. My little rant concerns all three.

Federal judges and especially the supreme court justices are supposed to act as a stabilizing force. They sit indefinately, without needing reelection they are supposed to be beyond corruption, beholden to none but their concious and the constitution. They are appointed by the president but need confirmation by the senate. One of the little checks and balances that our system is full of that keeps tyranny at bay and protects the minority. That's always been important in America, protecting the minority. We've seen what happens in countries that don't. A slim majority drasticly alters the government to keep itself in power and before you know it, there goes democracy. But back to judges.

Since the senate must confirm all judicial appointees one of the ways the minority party can block someone percieved as too extreme, catering to partizan politics or just undesireable is the fillibuster. Simply put they continue to discuss the nomination and never vote for confirmation. This is possible because it takes a 2/3 approval to call for a vote. If over 1/3 of the senate says we're not done discussing it and continue to talk, they can effectively block the appointment of a judge. Now note that it takes a significant portion of the senate to accomplish this, over 1/3, so minor objections and small political parties can't bring the senate to a halt. It takes a major representation and a serious objection. This keeps the party on top from padding the bench with appointees that might allow that drastic alteration we spoke of earlier and forces judges to be moderate to be approved.

The republicans used this tactic to their advantges consistantly when Clinton was in office and the Democrats controlled the senate. Now that the balance has once again shifted, the Dems are doing the same. Judges are important, they linger beyond elected terms and having the right or wrong person on the bench can help or hinder your parties political agenda for years and even effect future elections. Both parties know this and are not going to let the other guys slip someone through that is gonna alter things too much.

But the nuclear option has been thrown around recently, seems the republicans don't want to settle for moderate appointees, they want to seize on their slim majority and get judges that will back their agenda on the bench at all costs. Even if that means going nuclear.

The nuclear option is so named because it will in effect "blow up" the senate.
It will change the rules, literally. Those tried and trusted checks and balances that have protected and served this great nation so well will be swept out the door. You see it only takes a simple majority of the senate to change it's own rules.

So that's what's being discussed, changing the rules, taking away the filibuster option. In effect giving the majority party carte blanche on judicial appointees.

I for one am appalled. I see any attempt to use this option as the beginning of the end for the US. Our government will topple over a precipice that I fear we will never recover from without another civil war if we start down that slope. The checks and balances that protect us from ourselves must remain intact.

If you suffered through this entire post, congratulate yourself and let me know what you think.

I think comparing this plan to a chemical weapon would have been a better analogy because it makes me want to cover my nose and mouth with a damp cloth. :eek:

So that's what's being discussed, changing the rules, taking away the filibuster option. In effect giving the majority party carte blanche on judicial appointees.

I for one am appalled. I see any attempt to use this option as the beginning of the end for the US. Our government will topple over a precipice that I fear we will never recover from without another civil war if we start down that slope. The checks and balances that protect us from ourselves must remain intact.



I too am appalled that Americans seem so willing to throw away all the safety nets put in place in their constitution. Safety nets which were put there to stop the country from turning into a single party/single way of thought, you're with us or against us type of nation, safety measures which were meant to stop extremists and fundamentalists from gaining too much power and say in a supposedly free country.

How can this "nuclear option" be implemented? If there is enough opposition presence in the senate for fillibustering to be a factor then surely this change in procedural legislation would be fillibustered as well.
If one party gained more than 2/3 of the senate then they could change the system, but why would they bother? They can just push through whatever they want anyway. They would be defeating themselves in the future by removing this option. I don't know the patterns there, but in most democracies, the majority group in the elected houses tends to oscilate between parties as the electorate protest. A party with a large majority is likely to become the opposition in the forseeable future.

Stop worrying I think is what I am saying. Worry more about the fact that a big majority would have the power to change the constitution as it saw fit, rather than the improbable event of it eliminating fillibustering.

How can this "nuclear option" be implemented? If there is enough opposition presence in the senate for fillibustering to be a factor then surely this change in procedural legislation would be fillibustered as well.
If one party gained more than 2/3 of the senate then they could change the system, but why would they bother? They can just push through whatever they want anyway. They would be defeating themselves in the future by removing this option. I don't know the patterns there, but in most democracies, the majority group in the elected houses tends to oscilate between parties as the electorate protest. A party with a large majority is likely to become the opposition in the forseeable future.

Stop worrying I think is what I am saying. Worry more about the fact that a big majority would have the power to change the constitution as it saw fit, rather than the improbable event of it eliminating fillibustering.You are correct about the oscilation of power and this is what has kept either faction from going nuclear in the past. But you missed or didn't understand the part of my post where I explained why this option is possible. A simple majority (50% + 1), not 2/3 is only required for a rules change, not the 2/3 required to force a issue to vote. So it is possible and the subject has been brought up by Republicans, to eliminate the current fillibusters of far right nominees by using their simple majority to kill the fillibuster rule. Once this is done the door will probably be closed forever as the fillibuster is a tactic of the minority and whichever party is in the majority is unlikely to reinstate it or think about reinstating it until they are once again in the minority and thus unable to.

I find this trend of hypocrisy by the current batch of republicans troubling. They would have screamed to all who would have listened 10 years ago if the dems tried this when the republicans used the fillibuster to block liberal judges.

I'd like to add why this issue is of any importance.

Bush has just re-nominated 20 people for federal benches that were rejected during his first term. Although 204 were accepted, these 20 were among those deemed too extreme or without the best interests of the average citizen to sit.

Now he wants to try to push them through despite the objections. Most of these nominees have records of favoring buisiness interests over environmental or humanitarian causes. Since they would sit for life, long after his term ends, it would be a major coup by the corporate interests that seem to influence the current administration to get them confirmed. Since they have been rejected once already and their positions haven't changed, it's likely confirmation will be a battle that will include fillibusters.

Which is why some extremists (mainly those same buisiness interests) have been bringing up the nuclear option.

The problem is the system of the political appointment of judges. Why not just have judges being elected (that would fit the american psyche), or appointed by a board of existing judges.
This latter is an option that depends upon the current judges being more or less politically balanced. Judges will always tend toward the conservative. The law moves slowly everywhere. But aside from this inherent bias in the legal system, appointments of judges by judges seems to be the only realistic way of seperating the judicial branch from the executive.

Electing judges wold not necessarily give competence any value, so I have my doubts about it. (Just look at the presidents over the last thirty or so years, for justification of my doubt.)

Electing judges wold not necessarily give competence any value, so I have my doubts about it. (Just look at the presidents over the last thirty or so years, for justification of my doubt.)

Just as an aside, Texas judges are elected.

If Republicans tried to do away with filibusters I would immediatly accuse them of being proponents of tyranny and vote Democrat until the trouble makers were gone. Touching checks and balances is stepping way too far out of line and must not be tolerated. They are what have kept power hungry politicians from seizing control of our country. I assure you that if we presented Congress with a chance at making their party the country's only party or with a chance of making their party's leader dictator that someone would jump at it. "In the name of securing our country from the threats of terrorism", of course.

As much as I'm in favor of the Republican party I know it is essential to have healthy competition in the government. If you disagree you are wrong.

they have already gone way too far so many times in the past four years, this is almost redundant to me