NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was reading the editorials in the paper today when I came across one about the attempt to use the "nuclear option" to break the democrats filibuster of various Bush judicial nominees. And while reading it, I noticed that the author does admit that the "nuclear option" is legal, but it shouldn't be carried out, in the name of tradition and minority opposition. And I thought of another reason: What if you're in the minority party Dr. Frist? Yeah, my point exactly. I wouldn't enact it due to the dangers this would pose to myself.

Marrakech II suggested that if/when the Republicans were to ever lose power in Congress again, they would simply re-instate the measure before their numbers dwindled back down.

The nuclear option is "MAD" anyway. They would lose just as much as they would win. The "fallout" from using the option would certainly be very costly. Political suicide for a fair number of those involved, would certainly tarnish greatly the reputaitons of all involved.

They would literally have to pace their faith in the concept that the the American populace doesn't mind a party dictatorship...Not the best idea.

Actually, I read something interesting the other day. The Constitution asks for the "advice and consent" of the Senate. It does not specifically say they must vote up or down and decide it that way. Theoretically, 51 senators could simply sign a piece of paper giving their consent without any vote, and without having to use this so-called nuclear option.

As to this being the nuclear option, the media has, as usual, turned logic on its head. The filibuster has only once in history been used to turn back a judge appointment. That is the real nuclear option: filibustering judge appointments.

They would literally have to pace their faith in the concept that the the American populace doesn't mind a party dictatorship...Not the best idea.

Oh, come on, at least half the US is more than happy to cede their rights over to a right-wing tyranny. The rest is just work for the hacks in PR. Any grousing you may hear is surely just sour grapes on those oddballs who are into all that old-fashioned 'rights and freedoms' nonsense.

Dr. Frist, just leave it alone.

Sorry. I thought this was another thread about masturbation. Carry on.

So, I was reading the editorials in the paper today when I came across one about the attempt to use the "nuclear option" to break the democrats filibuster of various Bush judicial nominees. And while reading it, I noticed that the author does admit that the "nuclear option" is legal, but it shouldn't be carried out, in the name of tradition and minority opposition. And I thought of another reason: What if you're in the minority party Dr. Frist? Yeah, my point exactly. I wouldn't enact it due to the dangers this would pose to myself.
This would only be applied in the case of judicial appointments. It would be well-nigh impossible to apply it to passing legislation, as that process carries far more procedural and legal burdens than the simple constitutional admonition to give advice and consent.

It would actually restore the status quo. Giving straight up or down votes on judges. I must admit the Republicans started this by bottling several Clinton appointees up in committee, though they did not go so far as to filibuster.

As to this being the nuclear option, the media has, as usual, turned logic on its head. The filibuster has only once in history been used to turn back a judge appointment. That is the real nuclear option: filibustering judge appointments.

You are absolutely right. Never mind the fact that this is catagorically untrue.

Tell me, which partisan hack did you pick up this tidbit of "spin" from? I'm attempting to learn the styles of the major ones so I can know who said it before the shill stops speaking. Its a difficult undertaking, there are so many columnists who sound similar in their douchebaggery that it gets difficult to tell. Its kind of like an accent, you know what nation someone's from, but which region?

You are absolutely right. Never mind the fact that this is catagorically untrue.

Tell me, which partisan hack did you pick up this tidbit of "spin" from? I'm attempting to learn the styles of the major ones so I can know who said it before the shill stops speaking. Its a difficult undertaking, there are so many columnists who sound similar in their douchebaggery that it gets difficult to tell. Its kind of like an accent, you know what nation someone's from, but which region?

What's untrue? That the filibuster has only once before been used to turn back a judicial appointment, or that the filibuster of a judicial appointment is the real nuclear option?

Quote from Orrin Hatch before the Senate on March 15, 2005:

"Mr. President, the crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved while preserving two important Senate traditions. On the one hand, extended debate is an important part of how the United States Senate conducts its legislative business. On the other hand, we have traditionally given judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor a final confirmation decision. Two years ago, this latter tradition was attacked when the filibuster was used for the first time to defeat majority supported judicial nominations. Mr. President, these are two different and important traditions and each must be preserved. "

I admit this is from a Republican Senator, but I have done an initial search and have found nothing refuting the fact that the use of the filibuster against judicial appointments is a new tactic.

I admit this is from a Republican Senator, but I have done an initial search and have found nothing refuting the fact that the use of the filibuster against judicial appointments is a new tactic.

You mean the fact that the exact same tactic ws used against some of Clinton's appointees didn't come up?

You mean the fact that the exact same tactic ws used against some of Clinton's appointees didn't come up?
They did not use the filibuster - they used a different procedural tactic, which I already mentioned and you would know if you had read the entire thread. See post #7.

They did not use the filibuster - they used a different procedural tactic, which I already mentioned and you would know if you had read the entire thread. See post #7.

Well, 12 of one, a dozen of the other. I think they are all idiots. However, considering the particular judges in question, I support *any* tactics that keep such true "activist judges" off the bench.

Well, 12 of one, a dozen of the other. I think they are all idiots. However, considering the particular judges in question, I support *any* tactics that keep such true "activist judges" off the bench.
And I am just as supportive of all attempts to get these "strict constructionist" judges on it. I doubt either of us will convince the other of the error of our ways.

And I am just as supportive of all attempts to get these "strict constructionist" judges on it. I doubt either of us will convince the other of the error of our ways.

If that's what they actually were, I would be all for it. However, most of them have either made statements that women should get barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (essentially) or made rulings outside the law by making it impossible for them to be used (thus, not strict constructionist at all).

If that's what they actually were, I would be all for it. However, most of them have either made statements that women should get barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (essentially) or made rulings outside the law by making it impossible for them to be used (thus, not strict constructionist at all).
Examples?

Examples?

Can't remember exact names at the moment.

The guy he put in for a short time bypassing the Senate was the one who wrote all sorts of "Women's lib is the worst evil ever!" kinds of stuff.

There was a female judge who, although she is a judge in a place where it is possible for a teen to appeal to the court for the possibility of an abortion without parental consent, has never once, in the history of the law voted to allow it - holding young girls to an impossible standard, for no other reason that the fact that she doesn't agree with the law. Even when every other judge around her saw the reasoning behind it, she attempted to make sure that the law, while part of what she is supposed to be defending, never got used.

Can't remember exact names at the moment.

The guy he put in for a short time bypassing the Senate was the one who wrote all sorts of "Women's lib is the worst evil ever!" kinds of stuff.

There was a female judge who, although she is a judge in a place where it is possible for a teen to appeal to the court for the possibility of an abortion without parental consent, has never once, in the history of the law voted to allow it - holding young girls to an impossible standard, for no other reason that the fact that she doesn't agree with the law. Even when every other judge around her saw the reasoning behind it, she attempted to make sure that the law, while part of what she is supposed to be defending, never got used.
Her name is Priscilla Owens, who served on the Texas Supreme Court, and is well-known for her anti-abortion views. I'll have to cede the point to you on her - she was a "judicial activist" with regards to that issue in Texas.

I think most Republicans, and Democrats too, for that matter, if hard-pressed, will admit that the judges they want are the ones that hold views closest to their own. If you put it all out on the table, I think conservatives would have to admit they want judges that are pro-business, anti-abortion, and religion-friendly (not theocracy), whereas most Dems would have to admit they want judges that believe in the exclusion of any religion in public life, pro-abortion, and anti-capitalist.

I don't know... I think the Filibuster was better when it actually required that:
1. the Initiator continue speaking, without a break.
2. Nobody could "hand-off" the floor when they got tired to a colleague.

What we have in the Senate now, is what is known as the "German Filibuster", and it's just...not tough enough, it's too easy, and it doesn't require any real commitment on the part of the senator doing it... it doesn't require any real guts to do. I think it's lazy... definitely.

Can someone explain to me what the "nuclear option" is?

whereas most Dems would have to admit they want judges that believe in the exclusion of any religion in public life, pro-abortion, and anti-capitalist.
Since when were Democrats anti-capitalist?

I think most Republicans, and Democrats too, for that matter, if hard-pressed, will admit that the judges they want are the ones that hold views closest to their own. If you put it all out on the table, I think conservatives would have to admit they want judges that are pro-business, anti-abortion, and religion-friendly (not theocracy), whereas most Dems would have to admit they want judges that believe in the exclusion of any religion in public life, pro-abortion, and anti-capitalist.

And the rest of us simply want judges to be judges. There personal views mean nothing - they are there to interpret the law. A supreme court justice (I think) once wrote that, when you read a good judicial decision, you can't tell if the judge writing it is liberal or conservative, black or white, atheist or religious, etc. - you can just tell that it is good law.