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?

[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.