Nuclear Option, anyone?

What are your thoughts?

If Lieberman defects, no majority.

of sucking up to lieberman?

There is no bigger issue than this war escalation right now.

The important stuff will happen when Bush wants more money. Then he will have to get something passed and it will be our bills or no money period.

Bill Frist would be proud :sarcasm:

That's all the nuclear option was for. Hope you know that.

As I see it (correct me if I am wrong) it is to bring a vote on something that cannot get a filibuster proof majority.

put up to use the nuclear option for. On something as important as the war in Iraq, I think its use would be justified.

You guys know that don't you? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi undoubtedly do. With the numbers he's got at his disposal (including the opportunistic traitor Liberman) Mitch McConnell knows he can effectively filibuster every objectionable bill until 2009 when he will surely be voted out of office (let's all cross our fingers on that one- better yet, get off your asses and pound the pavement to make SURE.)

That is why I think the word "bipartisan" began being bandied about by Dem leadership shortly after the election. They knew only mealy-mouthed half-ass measures would make it through Republican obstructionism (and the 110th GOP members are in no way afraid to show themselves as hypocritical after accussing 109th Dems of the same), so they decided to push the bipartisan theme.

This allows big measures like this to be taken down with gusto by the elated Republicans, primarily because of lingering hubris and agitation over the loss of the agenda. This also puts them directly in the crosshairs in 2008. By marking the offending congressmen with shameful votes such as this they do the same to GOPers as was done to them in 2002- force a controversial vote then ram that vote down their electoral throats during the election.

to lose elections?

at this rate. I know America doesn't.

when the Republicans vote against cloture every time even though it will ruin their chances at reelection?

McConnell, at the least, will drive the filibuster until it breaks down all comity in the Senate, as will every other crony whose ass hangs in the balance. They know if we debate they lose, so they will do whatever it takes to avoid it.

The best we can hope for is to recapture our democracy in '08.

Force them to actually stand on the Senate floor for hours on end if they want to filibuster.

something in the language of the nuclear option that we can use.

Cloture fails, so does the bill.

I think the way it works is that they would ask for unanimous consent to proceed to a vote. A Republican would then object. In order to keep the request from going through the Republican Senator would have to keep talking. Now all of them that want to prevent cloture can share occupying the floor by yielding to other Senators. Ultimately the idea is that we force them to keep occupying the floor until enough Republicans get sick of it that we have 60 votes for cloture.

If one senator objects to a unanimous consent motion to invoke cloture it goes to a roll call vote, where you need 60 votes invoke cloture and proceed to a vote on the bill.

If it was that simple the Republicans would have spent the last two years forcing Democrats to stay on the floor talking about the few judges we blocked.

A senator can occupy the floor for as long as he wants, but IIRC after 3 days a cloture motion can be filed and debate can be cut off.

The nuclear option as it would have been applied to judges does not apply to regular legislation.

The point of the nuclear option was to have the president of the Senate declare that the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional as it prevented the Senate from giving advice and consent, thus setting a new precedent. Lots of ambiguity on all sides.

The filibuster of legislation is specifically rooted in the Senate rules, and a "nuclear option" could not be mounted.

I wanna glow.

:shrug: