am I the only person who thinks that it’s wrong to use the term “nuclear option”
when discussing the Senate’s fillibuster?
lets see:
nuclear option #1: tell the men in suits to sit down and vote like mature adults using the democratic process.
nuclear option #2: bomb Hiroshima
it’s fucking obscene…
I thought it had to do with constructing more nuclear power plants. Drat, they need to get started on those.
Well, changing the filibuster rules would be new, wouldn’t it? And the results, instead of allowing fuzzy filibuster rules, would be clear, wouldn’t they? So, isn’t that the new clear option they’re talking about?
I take it you have some issue with the Republican’s characterization of the elimination of the filibuster.
I think you’ve hit upon the origin of the filibuster right there:
<Fourth grade teacher>
“People, if you can’t sit still and vote like mature adults, then we’re just going to not have a vote at all! I mean it! And don’t come crying to me later and expect me to change my mind, because it’ll be too late!”
</Fourth grade teacher>
The reason why it was originally referred to as the “nuclear option” was because of the damage it would do to the Senate.
And they’re going to do it anyway. All over 7 judges. :rolleyes:
I understand the principle of the thing and all, but what will happen after they pass this rule change will wreck any hope of reasonable discourse for a long time to come. It hardly seems worth it, not with what is undoubtedly a large number of equally qualified judges out there.
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard that about 10 years ago that the ones for it were against it and the ones against it were for it. Sounds like politics as usual.
nuclear option #1: Employ a weasely dodge to avoid the 60 vote majority required to change the rules of the senate, and thus call into question all the rules of the senate.
Mature adults don’t try to unilaterally change the rules of the game when it’s not proceeding to their satisfaction. That’s what selfish children and cheaters do.
Perhaps so, but 10 years ago or however long ago it was they weren’t talking about reducing the Senate to a rubber stamp. That will be the result if they reduce the requirement to a simple majority (50+1). There will be no advisement, there will be no consent, there will be unimpeded progress right through to confirmation, and that’s bad news. The Democrats are doing what they think they have to (which I happen to think is wrong, by the way), but the Republicans are going to basically negate the responsibility of Congress over 7 people. Whatever happened to the greater good?
The worst crime regarding the term “nuclear option” is that many media sources continue to insist that this is the term given to this action by the Democrats.
It was actually coined by Trent Lott, and it was used by everybody until the Republicans figured out that it wasn’t polling well.
I agree with the sentiment but because the Senate is a neverending game if the rules need to be changed they need to be changed. It is not like the political “game” ever actually ends. While I disagree with the proposed rule change I disagree with the presumption that the Senate rules can never be changed and should never be changed, or that the Senate must wait for the end of the current game before changing the rules for the next game. The current rules are not sacrosanct and were not handed down from God to Moses or from the founding fathers to Dick Chaney.
I agree with calling the administration and Senate (and House) majority “selfish children and cheaters” though. 
I hear they trotted out “Constitutional option” a couple times, but, since giggling fits was not the optimum response, it was abandoned. Myself, I kinda thought the “Shoot out the lights and grab all the chips while its dark” option had a ring to it.
I’m holding out for the ‘personal nuclear option’. I like the idea of something I can hand down to my kids.
I’m holding out for “privatizing the Senate,” as a part of the No Lobbyist Left Behind Act.
You are, we presume, a member in good standing of a “well ordered militia”? And are planning strict compliance with local zoning laws?
One thing I have not quite understood about the Whiny Baby option…
The idea is that should the cloture motion fail, someone will appeal to the chair, claiming that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional. Under what Constitutional authority does the presiding officer of the Senate have the power to interpret the Constitution?
That would be the actual military, coast guard, etc. you are talking about. Now personally, I am not, but I am a member of the “Unorganized Militia” as all able-bodied male citizens age 17-44, by default. (US CODE: Title 10,311)
P.S Who were you replying to again?
He doesn’t! And that’s the beauty part! But as President of the Senate he has certain powers as regards rules, that is, he can say the rules say “X”. If the Senate votes by more than 50% that they agree that the rules say “X”, then there is nobody to appeal to but “Big Dick” Cheney! The rules used to say that you couldn’t get STFU level without a 60% majority agreeing, this nifty little shortcut means that you can do it with 50%.
:smack: I didn’t mean to sound so snarky, but I really am having trouble following all the stupid justicications by republicans who want to rewrite the rules.
Those Pantywaists? Not just no, but Hell no. I am however I long time fan of MAD. None of this “from my cold dead hands” crap. When they come for me, there will be no one left to speak out. 