The Nuclear Option has nothing to do with John Bolton

[EarlG]

I've seen quite a few people talking about Republicans triggering the Nuclear Option if the Democrats filibuster Bolton, and how it relates to the recent Compromise made by the centrist coalition.

But I was checking into the Nuclear Option and discovered that it only relates to judicial nominees. From The Week Magazine:

The two-thirds rule was subsequently changed to three-fifths, or 60 votes, in 1975. Republicans were happy with that arrangement until President Bush’s first term, when outnumbered Democrats resorted to filibusters to block 10 of Bush’s nominees to federal judgeships.

Had that ever been done before?
Rarely, but yes. In 1968, for example...

The GOP is warning that if Democrats try this again—especially if there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court—Vice President Dick Cheney may simply rule in his role as presiding officer of the Senate that filibusters cannot be used to block judicial nominations Republicans could approve this rule change with just a simple majority of 51 votes, not the supermajority of 60. Since the GOP holds 55 senate seats, their victory would be assured.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=790

So there you have it. The Nuclear Option relates to judicial nominations only, and therefore any talk of it being involved in a filibuster of Bolton is moot. In fact, if the Republicans do threaten the Nuclear Option they are going way above and beyond anything the original rule change was meant to do.

Sorry if this was blatantly obvious to everyone beforehand, it only just occurred to me.

[paineinthearse]

1. Thanks Earl G

One learns something every day!

[kentuck]

2. That is true but...

Frist and Bush are looking for any excuse to use the "nuclear option", imo...Just as McClelland has already said that the Democrats have already destroyed the "goodwill" created from the compromise of just a couple of days ago.

This was what the Democrats were saying: it starts out with just judicial nominees and then ends up being about Social Security or some other issue. It is the precedence that is dangerous.

[Singular73]

3. Im sorry, but the facts are..,..Naive

As if the public would understand the minutiae of the difference...the Republicans know this, hence why they put Bolton to a vote today...

[dsc]

4. and we believe the Republicans, why?

It strikes me as absurd that if the Republicans manage to end filibusters on judicial nominations they would stop there. After all, there is a much greater case to be made that the President should be able to have his choice for UN Ambassador than for Supreme Court given the lifetime tenure of the latter.

[BrightKnight]

5. Not going to shut up and ride in the back of the bus.

This is a representative democracy and not a one party state.

[dsc]

6. I wasn't saying the GOP was right

just that I don't trust them to stop with judges if they manage to get rid of the filibuster of them.

[Vinca]

7. And you actually think the Republicans wouldn't try to nuke a

filibuster of Bolton? Frist was practically licking his chops after the vote yesterday. I'll bet the first words out of his mouth in the cloak room were "nuclear option." The judicial nuking would have been the prelude to an end of the filibuster in all instances which would, of course, mark the start of an official dictatorship.

[CWebster]

8. Thanks for the small print

but they will still look for a way to ram everything through every time.

[Coexist]

9. Hey - great thought - if the media would highlight this then

the it would effectively kill the current right-wing talking point on this. Think anyone will do it?

Bolton is not a judicial nominee - therefore the Gang of 14s agreement does not apply to the Bolton nomination. Simple. Brilliant.

[Coexist]

10. This exact thought just expressed on Countdown!