The Nuclear Option, our american filibuster Options

[sadolakced acid]

Now, here's a little background for those of you who don't know about the nuclear option (or the filibuster).

the dems have 45 seats in the senate, there's one independent who often votes liberal, and 54 gops (grand old party= republican).

a filibuster is where you talk something to death. the senate must let everyone speak about an issue before they vote, or they take a vote to close speeches (requries a 60%)

now, the dems have been using the filibuster to stop GOP nominations, which the senate must approve. the GOP is angry= they won an election, now they want to be able to put thier judges up, and have thier contributers be made diplomates and embassadors.

the nuclear option would get rid of the filibuster. they'd only need a 51% to stop filibusters then, easily gotten with 54 seats.

NOW FOR THE PROMPT

the nuclear option violates a tradition in the senate, the dems also threaten to stop every single piece of legislation if the nuclear option is employed.

so: do you think the nuclear option should be employed? and if you say no, which side should back down/ what should be done?

[fameONE]

From that brief explanation there and there confused and rather biased explanation of my ex History teacher, it seems as though the dems want to put their foot down and still hold some ground in the senate since the gops have won two straight elections and seem to have America's support in virtually every decision made. Do you really think the sems would be this stubborn if Kerry would've won?

[*mipadi*]

It's not completely a matter of "the Dems wanting to put their foot down." It's partly a matter of principle. The judicial branch is, by definition, supposed to be independent of politics; yet the selection process has become very political, with politicians trying to install justices who will advance their political agenda. It's an abuse of the system.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say the Republicans have America's support in virtually every decision. Bush's approval rating right now is about 37%--not very high. In regards to the war, there is some strong disagreement. Even issues like abortion are almost evenly split; and let's not forget the Terri Schiavo case, in which many Republican politicians went against the wishes of the majority of Americans in trying to interfere with the judicial branch.

The filibuster is an attempt to prevent what our Founding Fathers considered to be "tryanny of the majority." Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't mean it's right. Remember that in the 1930's, a majority of German citizens elected Adolph Hitler, and went along with his plan to exterminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, and other such groups. That doesn't make it right.

Having said that, I personally don't feel that the filibuster is an appropriate use of legislative procedure, and I think the Democrats have damaged their reputation by using it in many cases.

Keep in mind, though, that it's not just Democrats who use the filibuster. The use of it in regards to judicial nominees was, in many ways, pioneered by Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990's, when Clinton was president and the Republicans held a minority in Congress. In fact, the Republicans actually blocked more judicial nominees for Clinton than the Democrats have for Bush. Doesn't make either side right, but it does put it in perspective.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Well, it's nothing new. Post-election hostility will always be a factor in American politics. It's the same mentality that confused, non-conformist teens possess when they say 'Bush is not my president, I'm moving to Canada!' It's an irrational, unsubstantiated hatred for the party that beat you.

As well, filibustering will always be a part of our legislative system, and the Republicans need to realize that. People don't like losing, and when they do, you'll hardly find them siding, and agreeing with their opponents when it comes to domestic and foreign policy.

Furthermore, mipadi, when you said that politics, by definition, were to never be involved in the Judicial Branch, you overestimate the extent to which that very definition matters. I suppose it goes back to that neverending battle between 'the Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law', where I found that, in most cases, the Spirit of the Law was more logical. It would be ridiculous to say that 1/3 of the world's largest political body would be absolutely remote from political influence.

But, back to the topic at hand. In essence, I find myself on a neutral plateau when it comes to this issue. Democrats from 2005-2008 will have their three-piece suits wrinkled and tattered from all the whining they'll do when it comes to Republican influence in the House and Senate (and vice versa for any other election). In that sense, they're wrong. On the contrary, Republicans need to take note of the fact that filibustering, a mere prototype of human nature, will always be around, and an oppressive system like the nuclear option is absolutely unacceptable.

[not_for_anything]

Not employed, why should they be given the power? Im not an expert at this but there are 3 branches of the governemt right...judicial, presidental...and the courts?
and they all watch over each other, so theres a chance that it may not be passed, through appeals...or something?

[*CrackedRearView*]

Not employed, why should they be given the power? Im not an expert at this but there are 3 branches of the governemt right...judicial, presidental...and the courts?
and they all watch over each other, so theres a chance that it may not be passed, through appeals...or something?

Yeah, Judicial, Legislative, and Executive.

You strike a good point about the unlikelihood of the system being ratified through all of the branches, but it can be countered with the fact that each and every one of the branches is dominantly red this year.

[*not_your_average*]

The Democrats need to have a say in our laws. If we did not employ the filibuster, abortion might become illegal, gay marriage would be outlawed, and the seperation of church and state would go kaput. We must keep the filibuster for everyone to have their say.

[*CrackedRearView*]

The Democrats need to have a say in our laws. If we did not employ the filibuster, abortion might become illegal, gay marriage would be outlawed, and the seperation of church and state would go kaput. We must keep the filibuster for everyone to have their say.

Are you going to sing the same tune when a Democrat is elected?

[sadolakced acid]

Are you going to sing the same tune when a Democrat is elected?

no, because we're hippocrites.

we need compromises. i'd personally like to see a dem. president with a GOP vice president, or vice versa. it'd be interesting.

and the filibuster is the minority's right. even if it does happen to be the republican minority, when the time comes.

i think, if someone cares enough about an issue to talk 48 hours straight, they deserve to have people negotiate and come to a compromise with them.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Something that struck me as interesting was how drastically the tables have turned. Why is it when a Republican president appoints a conservative judge, the Democrats and liberals filibuster, curse, criticize, and give bloody threats? When Ginsburg and Breyer, some of the most leftist judges in court, were appointed by Clinton, they received votes of 96-3 and 86-9 respectively. Even the Republicans confirmed their nomination, because they have the mentality that 'if we win, we appoint our judges; if they win, they get to appoint their judges.' Lately, Democrats don't seem to understand that.

[*mipadi*]

The legislature shouldn't have the mentality that the group in charge gets to call all the shots. Issues like Supreme Court justices should be dealt with in a bilateral manner. The reason Ginsburg and Breyer received such high confirmation votes is because Clinton consulted with Republic congressional leaders (namely, Orrin Hatch) before offering their nominations, and they were candidates both the Democrats and Republicans approved of. The last couple years, however, the Republicans have let their majority go to their head, and they, especially Bush, have repeatedly snubbed Congressional Democrats. The Republicans might have the power, but given the number of close votes, as well as the dismal approval rating of President Bush, they really shouldn't be taking advantage of their position. Not everyone in the country approves of their actions, and maybe, with O'Connor retiring, the time has some to work together, instead of working against each other.

As a side note, I feel that confirmation vote rules should be changed to require a supermajority of the Senate. The ratification of treaties, for example, requires not a simple majority, but a 2/3 majority of the Senate; the same goes for veto overrides. This means that a party can't have a simple majority to win. I think this seems appropriate for confirmation votes--it would require a bilateral agreement, and prevent what the Founding Fathers called "tyranny of the majority."