What's the deal about the so-called "nuclear option" in the Senate?

[BrettStah]

OK, I've heard that Bill Frist is thinking of using the "nuclear option" that would change current Senate rules that allow filibusters to go on indefinitely.

What I hadn't heard of before today was this... that this nuclear option has already been used successfully in the Senate, back in 1975, to lower the threshold from 2/3 down to 3/5 of the Senate to end a filibuster.

This would seem to legitimize this option.

[unblock]

1. well, it's "legitimate" in that ...

the senate is not LEGALLY bound by its traditions.

if the republican majority wants to, they can change all the senate rules except the few things specified in the constitution.

that they would even consider tossing aside long-time traditions simply because they can't muster a 60-40 supermajority on NON-VITAL things like appointment of partisan judges is yet another indication of their contempt for decent governance.

they will misuse and abuse any trick in the book to win one stupid vote, then cry bloody hell if the democrats even think about fighting back....

[Walt Starr]

2. Not quite true

They need a 60-40 majority in order to change the rules.

The so-called nuclear option is to have Dick Cheney come into the Senate and declare an end to the filibuster via a suspension of the rules.

At that point, the Dems walk out save one who suggests the absence of a quorum.

Bip bop bang, instant constitutional crisis.

[BrettStah]

9. But apparently the Senate changed the rules in 1975 with a simple majority

Therefore why couldn't the current Senate do the same thing?

[oneighty]

3. And they will squeal

like pigs in a few years when the changes are used against them.

180

[whoYaCallinAlib]

4. The constitition does not require supermajority for judicial appointments.

Ipso facto, no constitutional crisis. What you would have is the repukes overturning decades of senate tradition. And the bastards just might try to pull it off.

[Walt Starr]

5. Nope, there WOULD be a constitutional crisis

and the Repukes know it.

Under the rules they cannot change the rules without a majority of 60-40.

The socalled nuclear option is Dick Cheney suspending the rules, thus ending the filibuster.

The constitutional crisis occurs when the Dems walk out leavin one person to suggest the absence of a quorum. That is the point at which the Senate can no longer function under the constitution.

[dfong63]

6. but it could be filibustered

The constitition does not require supermajority for judicial appointments.

but the vote could be filibustered, and overcoming the filibuster would require a supermajority.

[wuushew]

7. Wrong it is a crisis

The Senate has never changed its rules "mid-stream", as the proceedures for conducting the business of the senate is decided at the beginning of the session. If something passed in violation of the senate's own rules I don't see how such an action is valid. I am not quite sure what the term "current session" means. Do they take a vote on rules for each half of the 108th Senate?

[jfxgillis]

8. Technically, the rule at issue is this ...

The Standing Rules of the Senate require cloture on debate.

That rule has always been presumed to apply to the Executive Calendar as well as the Legislative Calendar.

Cheney would call the vote on one of the filibustered judicial nominees. Presumambly, one of the Dems would call a point of order.

The Parliamentarian would presumably uphold the point of order and the Dems would temporarily win the "ruling of the chair." (Cheney would technically AGREE with the Dems.)

But then, presumably, Frist would call for a vote to overrule the ruling of the chair, a vote which takes only a Majority. Then the GOP would win THAT vote, breaking the filibuster.

I regard that option as unlikely but not impossible. You see, the people garnering the MOST protection from this filibuster are the so-called "moderate" NorthEast Republicans, Chaffee, Collins, Snowe and Specter. There is no way they want to vote on these lunatic neo-Confederates one way or the other. If they vote for them, they get hammered by the Dems and the socially liberal GOP constituencies in their suburbs. If they vote against, they make enemies of the White House.