The 'nuclear option'
According to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061800566_pf.html) the spin from the mouth of the leader of the group called People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, recently commented on President Bush's potential nominations to the Supreme Court - should a vacancy come into being, ""Regrettably, the most often mentioned names certainly seem to be individuals in the mode of Justices Thomas and Scalia... If you look at the last four and half years, the president's always chosen confrontation over collaboration. I hope he surprises me."
According to that pesky document known as the Constitution, (Article II, Section 2) "... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law..."
The part that raises so many questions is where Article I, Section 5 (only relevant portion cited) says, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
This is where the term 'nuclear' gets thrown around. Some people have called it the constitutional option - and that it exactly what it is, too.
The Senate has set up rules for dealing with the large amount of issues and subjects that might be brought to its attention so to 'arrange' all of them in order of importance and to determine if those items should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and / or vote.
The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (http://judiciary.senate.gov/information.cfm) oversees many items including determining if Presidential nominations should get a vote on the floor of the Senate.
Now, enter the fillabuster. The idea goes like this: Before a bill (or anything else - including nominations) gets a vote, the floor can be opened for debate and discussion. The slightly troubling part about this is that there is no rule for the discussion to be on topic, or even near topic. According to Senate rules, it takes a two-thirds majority to stop a fillabuster and get on with the vote. This was done not to create a stalling tactic per se, but to make it so the minority could have time to make its case before the majority in an effort to possibly win them over. This, in itself, is not a bad idea at all and DOES in fact add to the level of democracy in the Senate. However, the idea that someone like Strom Thurmond can stand on the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes and say nothing of any worth (that is the record - est. 1957) is not in anyone's interest at all.
This is what the liberals wish to do to the President's nominations when they come to the floor and this is something that has never been done before in the history of the Senate.
Some conservatives say that since a fillabuster needs two-thirds majority to be stopped, but a yes or no vote for a nomination, according the Constitution, only requires a simple majority that attempting a fillabuster is unconstitutional.
Initially this argument looks reasonable, but the Constitution also only calls for a simple majority for standard votes on bills, but fillabusters have been used there for over a century.
The 'nuclear' option is nothing more than the constitutional option: opting to change the rules of the Senate. The Constitution does not say that once a rule is established it cannot be changed, nor does it say that rules cannot be changed during a Congressional Session. This is not a nuclear option; it is simply the Constitutional option and is the correct way to handle the situation.
When Neas says that the President chooses confrontation, he is mistaken, the President simply wants the Senate to vote on consent regarding his nominations to the courts which is what is required of the Senate on this matter.
According to that pesky document known as the Constitution, (Article II, Section 2) "... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law..."
The part that raises so many questions is where Article I, Section 5 (only relevant portion cited) says, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
This is where the term 'nuclear' gets thrown around. Some people have called it the constitutional option - and that it exactly what it is, too.
The Senate has set up rules for dealing with the large amount of issues and subjects that might be brought to its attention so to 'arrange' all of them in order of importance and to determine if those items should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and / or vote.
The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (http://judiciary.senate.gov/information.cfm) oversees many items including determining if Presidential nominations should get a vote on the floor of the Senate.
Now, enter the fillabuster. The idea goes like this: Before a bill (or anything else - including nominations) gets a vote, the floor can be opened for debate and discussion. The slightly troubling part about this is that there is no rule for the discussion to be on topic, or even near topic. According to Senate rules, it takes a two-thirds majority to stop a fillabuster and get on with the vote. This was done not to create a stalling tactic per se, but to make it so the minority could have time to make its case before the majority in an effort to possibly win them over. This, in itself, is not a bad idea at all and DOES in fact add to the level of democracy in the Senate. However, the idea that someone like Strom Thurmond can stand on the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes and say nothing of any worth (that is the record - est. 1957) is not in anyone's interest at all.
This is what the liberals wish to do to the President's nominations when they come to the floor and this is something that has never been done before in the history of the Senate.
Some conservatives say that since a fillabuster needs two-thirds majority to be stopped, but a yes or no vote for a nomination, according the Constitution, only requires a simple majority that attempting a fillabuster is unconstitutional.
Initially this argument looks reasonable, but the Constitution also only calls for a simple majority for standard votes on bills, but fillabusters have been used there for over a century.
The 'nuclear' option is nothing more than the constitutional option: opting to change the rules of the Senate. The Constitution does not say that once a rule is established it cannot be changed, nor does it say that rules cannot be changed during a Congressional Session. This is not a nuclear option; it is simply the Constitutional option and is the correct way to handle the situation.
When Neas says that the President chooses confrontation, he is mistaken, the President simply wants the Senate to vote on consent regarding his nominations to the courts which is what is required of the Senate on this matter.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 23:16
<< Home