Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Something I have been thinking about for a while: The Nuclear Option.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 10:38 PM
Original message
Something I have been thinking about for a while: The Nuclear Option.
I think it is a given that the Republicans (at least enough) will work with the Democrats on the big economic issues, but beyond that it is up in the air. This past Senate session was repeatedly filibustered by the GOP, ensuring nothing big got through.

The question now becomes, what if the 41 (or 42) Republicans in the next Senate do the same? What if they repeatedly block legislation using the filibuster and don't use that ability sparingly (like the Democrats did when they were out of power)?

The Nuclear Option could be an option and has been brought up on some radio shows/blogs, but I think that is a dangerous path to go down. I think it is likely worth the lost ground on certain legislation (in the form of concessions to the GOP to avoid a filibuster) if that means maintaining the power and option of the filibuster in the future case of another Democratic minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clovis Sangrail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. I was against it when Frist et al were behind it and would still be against it
though I've got to admit I look forward to the theater of everybody changing sides on the issue
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. The "nuclear option" was very narrow and only applied to judicial appointments
Not the filibuster of legislation or even some other appointments.

That would require a formal rules change and 75 votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. I've been thinking the same ...

I'm of two minds on this at the moment, though.

First and currently foremost, I think the so-called "nuclear option" is bogus, a pile of crap run up the pole by Cheney as one more level of the Bush administration's attempt to blur or eliminate the separation of powers.

Second, and without that as a consideration, the recent Democratic minorities haven't used the filibuster when it actually mattered, so I'm not sure what the difference would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. I still oppose it
Your never in power forever and once you've done it there's no going back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. If they don't act right, then by all means
USE IT! :mad: I'm so sick and tired of those disgusting knuckle dragging rethugs. F'em!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why worry?
The USA has almost fully morphed into one big CORPORATE right-wing duopoly. That is, our rulers within both parties only bother continuing elections in order to give "us peons" the illusion of a representative government. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-02-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. That would call for Presidential Bully Pulpit action......
There are Republican Senators in states that Obama won handily.....I do believe. All Obama has to do is make an appearance in that state and talk to the contituents. He'd get big local coverage in a state like Maine, for example, where Sen. Snowe and Collins are from. He get the Maine constituents to start writing letters to those Senators.

So, I don't think that republicans are going to be able to block as much as they think.....or let's just say, they don't know BO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
8. In this case wrong is wrong
It's antithetical to our form of government no matter who is behind it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stahbrett Donating Member (855 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Why would modifying a Senate rule be "antithetical to our form of government"?
The filibuster rule is just a rule... it's not in the Constitution. The Constitution DOES have certain items that require super-majorities in order to be passed (ratifying treaties, overturning vetoes, etc.), but being able to indefinitely block a vote on anything else with a minority of Senators is not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
9. They should make it clear right away that if the Repukes don't play
ball with them on Health Care Reform they get the nuke options. They can pull their usual bullsh*t on everything else but they better clear a path for that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stahbrett Donating Member (855 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. I've long thought that the filibuster rule should be overhauled
I have a big problem with a minority of Senators being able to indefinitely prevent a vote on anything - judicial appointments, or anything else.

The way I'd "fix" it would be to allow a minority of Senators to delay, but NOT prevent, a vote on anything. Once an issue is delayed by such a minority, the next time the issue is brought up, a larger minority would be required to delay the vote, and that would continue until finally a vote is allowed.

So the first filibuster attempt on an issue would require only 41 votes. But after the delay, it would take at least 42 Senators to force another delay, and then 43, 44, etc. This would let a minority of Senators greatly extend the amount of time and debate on an issue if they thought that something was being rushed through without proper debate, but ultimately the full Senate would be allowed to vote up or down on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
12. Filibuster is anti democratic and has long outlived its usefulness.
It's time to end it. We allow this modern day House of Lords to block legislation with 41 votes. Time to peel that back to about 55 votes, if we keep it at all.

It's just a god damn rule and it's been changed before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC