Will Senate Republicans use the "nuclear option"?

Great Debates
1

For those who missed this insignificant news tidbit over the weekend, Chief Justice William Rehnquist went to a hospital over the weekend with breathing problems. He returned to the bench Monday, but the move has reminded folks that George W. Bush may end up nominating new justices to the Supreme Court, along with his other ongoing judicial nominations.

The only thing stopping the Bush Administration from flooding the courts with right-wing ideologues are the Senate Democrats, who – though outnumbered – are currently able to use the filibuster to block the more objectionable candidates.

Annoyed at the Dems for actually exercising checks and balances, however, Senate Republicans (led by Bill Frist) have threatened that, if the Democrats won’t roll over and play dead, they will use the “nuclear option,” and change Senate rules to eliminate the use of filibusters. The Democrats have counter-threatened to halt most of the Senate’s business, triggering a partial government shutdown, if this happens.

The ball is now in the Senate Republicans’ court. Shall we debate the possible outcomes? Is this mere bullying/grandstanding from the Senate Republicans, or are they really willing to poison the well over this?
(As for me, I think threatening to remove the filibuster is blatantly stupid, as it looks like a naked partisan power grab, and actually doing it would be idiotic beyond belief. But then, IMO the Republican Party has been overdosing stupidity since the Gingrich years…)

2

A minor nit: I believe the “nuclear option” (wish I’ve heard referred to recently as “filibuster reform” – you gotta love these guys) would only eliminate filibusters for judicial nominees.

3

If the Dems are going to filibuster the Judicial nominees why wouldn’t the just filibuster the act that eliminates filibustering.

4

I thought I’d preempt anyone that wants to step in with the chestnut that the Democrat’s opposition and filibustering of candidates is “unprecedented”. Nonsense.

5

A partial government shutdown? That’s what I’m hoping for. Anytime we can keep these people, on either side of the aisle, from fucking things up worse is a good day in my book.

6

It isn’t just filbibusters: this is just the last in a long line of proceedural checks available to a minority party thatthe Republicans used to get tons of mileage out of, but have now dismantled that they are in power.

One wonders why the Democrats didn’t dismantle these checks when they were in power? It probably comes down to values…

7

I suspect they won’t try, to answer the OP directly. The nuclear option is something that only a party with not only a majority, however slight, but overweening confidence that the public will fall in behind their agenda, would try. That’s the product of ideology, not politics. Now that the centerpiece of the repeal-the-20th-century ideological agenda, the gutting of Social Security, is so far out of the realm of the possible that even Frist knows it, combined with their current massive public embarrassment over their Schiavo-case miscalculation, I really don’t think even the hardest partisans among them have the self-confidence to try something that would just show them to be simple power-grabbers with no higher principle.

And that brings the slimness of the majority into play. It would take a hard whipping of every Republican, including some serious (and patently insincere) coaxing of the moderates that give them that majority, to do it. Are Snowe, Collins, Chafee, perhaps Voinovich, going to give up the Senate’s power to advise and consent in return for some favor they can’t sell to the home folks anyway? No, if Frist, Cheney & Co. aren’t in the process of actually learning the meaning of the responsibility that’s been entrusted to them, I think they at least may be sufficiently cowed into stopping this crusade they’ve been on.

8

No, I don’t think they will. However, the democrats never changed the rules because it wasn’t necessary. They never faced filibusters of lower court appointments. And as the article linked above mentions only once to block the appointment of the chief justice. It was a real “smith goes to washington” filibuster too.

9

That raises an interesting question: Does the Senate’s traditional right of “unlimited debate” apply to all matters, including debates over changes to the Senate’s procedural rules? I can find no answer to that on the relevant page of the Senate’s website (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm), nor in the relevant Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic)). Is there any Doper with deep knowledge of Senate rules?

10

:confused: During the Clinton Administration I recall a lot of news stories about Senate Republicans blocking Clinton’s judicial appointees (though I don’t recall if the word “filibuster” was ever used).

11

:rolleyes:

We’ve had previous “partial government shutdowns” resulting from political impasses between the Capitol and the White House. It was never anything but a big fat pain in the ass for the whole country. Never again!

12

That’s because there were all sorts of other rules that allowed them to block justices which Republicans have now done away with. Jesse Helms basically had an ongoing ban on black justices from his state for years because of the blue slip rule.

13

How was it a pain in the ass for the entire country? Other than hearing about it every 10 minutes on CNN? Things like SS, Medicare/ -aid, military, roads and all other essential functions were never, and won’t ever, be interrupted.

I love gov’t shutdowns because it means they have to concentrate on keeping the country running instead of debating new and increaslingly specialized laws and regulations. Unless you prefer Washington filling the void by coming up with new ways of affecting you, I’m wondering what the rolleyes were for. :wally

14

You, me and Will Rogers

15

:confused: “Blue slip rule”?

16

:dubious: Ya think?!

17

Isn’t it highly unusual for a President to get into his second term without making even one nomination? It’s not the Democrats stopping Bush from stacking (or even affecting) the Court, it’s the glommy nature of the Justices themselves. Somebody retire, already; my popcorn’s getting cold.

18

No. I know, as do you apparently.

Care to show how how shutdowns are a “big, fat pain in the ass for the country”? :dubious:

19

Seriously? From a Clinton address during the the last shutdown (partisan, of course, but I didn’t see an objective list at first glance):

All sorts of basic services are cut off (need a passport?), huge numbers of federal employees are temporarily out of work, etc.

I can sympathize with your desire to keep Congress et al. from mucking things up for a little while, but a government shutdown clearly does more harm than good.

20

Sorry, link