Should Democrats use Nuclear option on fillibuster?

[Toots]

The GOP brought it up and used it as their big weapon against the Democrats. It is in the arena now and will be used one day by some party. I say let's get it over with. Let's go ahead and use their very own weapon against them now since their minority leader is already trying to threaten and intimidate. Screw them..I am just trying to be a realist here. The fillibuster is going to go by the way side eventually. The GOP has made that abundantly clear. The Stakes are indeed very very high so we need to stop this fascist undertaking of their's of stacking the judiciary with wing nuts from the Federalist Society. Those people only know ideology and not Country....They could give one damn about America only Party rule.....I say Democrats should Nuke the fillibuster and be done with it.....

[annabanana]

1. Lieberman wouldn't allow it....

He is going to be a legislative nightmare, that guy.

[napi21]

2. I say YES! I really don't want EITHER Party to have the ability

to pass niminees with just a simple majority, but I also don't believe the Pubs will let a nuke option be used...now that they know they're not the majority anymore as of January. I believe at least some of the Pubs actually believed theywere going to be the majority forever back when they were using this threat!

[cali]

3. No. It was wrong when the pukes

proposed it, and it's just as wrong now. The Senate is largely fashioned around the minority party having a significant amount of power. That should not be changed.

[lonestarnot]

4. What cali said, but

what do we do about their threats?

[Toots]

5. I never suggested it was right only inevitable...

Should it be them or us?

[cali]

6. I don't see it as inevitable at all.

It didn't happen under the repukes, and if the dems do it, it's nothing but rank hypocricy.

[wtmusic]

8. Amen.

It's amazing how many can flip their rationale like a switch when it's our turn.

[elocs]

11. If the Dems use the nuclear option, then it is inevitable, isn't it?

A self fulfilling prophecy based upon agreeing with the premise of the argument. I would prefer to do what is right because it is right, not only when it is expedient. Is the goal to show that we can be badder than the Republicans? The Democrats have a massive, oops--than should be tenuous, 1 vote majority in the Senate. What is the point of strutting around like we are so tough when the voters can change that in 2 years? The Republicans also had an ace in the hole when they threatened the nuclear option--they had a Republican president in the White House. That does change things. The Democrats do not have a veto proof majority in either house, so they are not exactly going to be able to ram through a lot of legislation, nuclear option or not. So let the Republicans filibuster away and then we can paint them as simply being obstructionist in the next election.

[moondust]

7. Better to deal with it from a position of strength.

Pukes will use it if they ever get control again and somebody stands in the way of their bulldozer.

[cali]

10. What is wrong with you guys

who encourage the dems to use the nuke option? It weakens minority rights in the Senate and makes dems look like the biggest honking hypocrites ever. Dems should make it a point to state that they would never do anything like the nuke option that weakens democracy.

[moondust]

13. If necessary

force the issue out of the darkness now and change the rules (or whatever) to prevent it from being used in the future. Using it once may be useful in convincing everyone that the rules need to be changed. One way or another, deal with it while in the majority.

[rucky]

9. And then face a veto?

no point in it. let them filibuster their lungs out, for all I care.

[Igel]

12. My understanding of the nuclear option is that

it could only plausibly be applied to certain kinds of votes. Non-legislative ones.

One could invoke it for judges, where the only kind of decision to be made is "yes" or "no", and where there's really no danger of a veto. No amendments or qualifications were possible; there would be no legislative history of any interest except the final tally.

One couldn't invoke it for legislation or budget bills, in which amendments and even legislative history could be important.

But I could be wrong about this, and would appreciate anybody that actually knows more to fill me in. This is very much not my shtick.

[NEDem]

14. No way, this is a stupid idea

What is wrong with you people? To eliminate it would not only show us to be major hypocrites, but would them put us on the same level as the pukes we just ran out of office. Leave it alone.