GOP Leaders Refuted by Their Own Briefing Book on Nuclear Option

[struggle4progress]

PFAWF Analysis of The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures

According to published reports, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intends to push the button on the “nuclear option” to eliminate judicial filibusters within the next four to eight weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying hard to convince fellow Republican Senators that the “nuclear option” – a parliamentary trick to change the Senate filibuster rules – has historical precedent. Unfortunately for Frist and his allies, a recent law journal article that reportedly is a key element of the briefing book prepared for his colleagues seriously undermines his claims. The fact that Frist and his allies are leaning so heavily on an article that actually damages their case demonstrates how little legal and historical ground they have to stand on. <snip>

None of the supposed “precedents” cited by nuclear option proponents for changing the rules by parliamentary ruling supports the effort to reinterpret the Senate’s written rules to mean the opposite of their explicit text. The incidents that Gold and Gupta try to stretch into precedents for the nuclear option are not remotely comparable to the radical step of eliminating the filibuster; they were more in the nature of closing loopholes in existing rules or practices allowing senators to delay the work of the Senate.

The nuclear option being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Frist and his allies is without historical precedent, and would in fact undermine the special deliberative role played by the Senate throughout our nation’s history and damage a central element of our constitutional system of checks and balances. That is why a number of Republican senators have expressed doubts about, or direct opposition to, the nuclear option, as have some conservative commentators. Frist should abandon his destructive plans to undermine the role and working of the Senate, and refocus his energies on encouraging President Bush to engage in consultation and cooperation that would result in judicial nominees capable of receiving genuine bipartisan support. <snip>

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=17964

[GetTheRightVote]

1. Amen to that final comment.

:kick:

[rodeodance]

2. hope this article has legs

[bemildred]

3. Destroying the two-party duopoly can't be all bad. nt

[struggle4progress]

4. A one party state will be better?

[bemildred]

5. There are numbers larger than two.

I also like the no-party state, as in Cuba.

[struggle4progress]

6. Under the Republican "nuclear option" only the majority party ...

... would have any power, because they would use parliamentary rulings to do whatever they wanted, regardless of the actual rules. So splits seem suicidal.

[bemildred]

7. That would lead to their destruction, IMHO.

It is one thing to pass laws, it is another thing entirely to get
people to obey them voluntarily. There is already a good deal of
restlessness out in the hinterlands of the empire, and empty bluster
and making themselves look stupid will not improve their situation.
Putting in a bunch more fuckwit judges will just erode the legitimacy
of the federal government and the federal justice system, and both
are already in trouble. Since I oppose the empire, I favor things that
will bring it down, intentional or not. But, I realize others may see
things differently.

[struggle4progress]

8. I would simply say that it is completely unclear to me exactly how ...

... much further the Bushistas are prepared to go in their efforts to seize and consolidate power.

While it is clear that the "nuclear option" could provide unprecedented organizing opportunities for the political opposition, it is also worthwhile to contemplate what undisciplined responses are possible and the ways in which the Bushistas' provocateurs might be expected to encourage such undisciplined responses, together with the resulting manipulation of public opinion by the corporate media.

My view is that such an assault on procedural rule is likely to be accompanied by such parallel preparations and covert acts, as will make the net effect exceedingly unpleasant for many ordinary Americans over an extended period. Then, as the Bushistas and their successors become increasingly isolated and paranoid, and become increasingly dependent on technological superiority in order to maintain their control, we should expect an increasingly vicious militaristism in our foreign policy.

In short, I see an ugly slippery slope ...

[bemildred]

9. Oh, it's going to suck, I don't disagree with that.

Just how badly is not clear as yet.

And I assume they are up for anything they think they can get away with,
which amounts to anything, since desperate people grab at straws and
they are all practitioners of groupthink.

The fundamental issue at this point (as I see it) is whether the ruling
classes as a whole will go along and follow them over the cliff or
attempt to put up some serious sort of resistance. It seems clear at
this point that the Straussian boobs in the Neocon camp are not about to
retreat and give up on World domination yet.

And it seems clear that the American population as a whole is not
aware or alert or aroused enough to interfere in any effective way
in the course of events, yet. But things have only begun to suck,
anybody that remembers the late phase of the VietNam conflict in the
70s knows that what we have now is modest in terms of suckiness.