Sunday, November 14, 2004
Judicial Nominations: The Nuclear Option
You know what; I say it's time we made a 'bit of glass! *Cackles Wildly*From the NYTimes:
The Senate Rules Committee approved a plan last year that would gradually lower the threshold for filibusters against judicial nominees until a simple majority would allow a final vote. But a change in the rules requires 67 votes, and lacking anything near that support, the proposal never went to the floor.I'm not so sure it's a good idea; it's clearly a last resort. But I do find the nickname 'the nuclear option' to be hidiously, and satisfyingly, appealing. And I know the New York Times would take the opportunity of this procedural move to run some crazy headline about republicans 'nuking' the senate or some such headline. I would frame such a paper.
Senator Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican who is chairman of the Rules Committee, has been among the Republicans who have also suggested that the Republicans try to win a change by seeking a ruling from the chairman, a position that a Republican would hold, that filibusters against executive nominations are unconstitutional. A favorable ruling would require just a majority to uphold.
Some Republicans have been reluctant to try that maneuver. They call it the nuclear option, because it could come back to haunt them if they are in the minority. Democrats have also threatened to tie up the Senate in knots if they lose their right to filibuster in that manner.
Comments:
Post a Comment
