Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Threat of Nuclear Blow Up in Congress Not New

In May 2003 Trent Lott introduced the idea of using a 'nuclear option' to break the Democrats' opposition to Charles Pickering.

"Charles Pickering was subjected to two contentious hearings last year in which Democrats on the judiciary panel harshly criticized some of the judge's decisions and suggested he is insensitive to civil rights and women's rights. Democrats, who controlled the committee last year, rejected Pickering's nomination."

"The GOP is in control this year, but the party lacks the 60 votes needed in the Senate to stop a Democratic filibuster of Pickering's nomination. Democratic filibusters have stalled nominations of two other conservative candidates for federal judgeships, Miguel Estrada and Patricia Owen.
A rules change would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, an unlikely occurrence. GOP leaders also are considering trying to change the filibuster rule from the chair of the Senate, which would require only a simple majority vote to approve if Democrats challenged the ruling.


That tactic is known as the "nuclear option." Democrats have warned of "fallout" if Republicans resort to that maneuver.

"I'm for the nuclear option, absolutely," Lott has said. "The filibuster of federal district and circuit judges cannot stand. ... It's bad for the institution. It's wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem."

I heard yesterday on Randi Rhodes show on Air America Radio that the republicans are trying to change how they refer to their 'nuclear' option. They are trying to call a rule change elminating the filibuster on judicial nominations a 'constitutional option.' They are trying to say that the Democrats came up with the name 'nuclear' option because they plan to shut down the Senate if the republicans change the filibuster rules. I think this clearly shows that the republicans were using the term 'nuclear option' two years ago to describe their own high-handed tactics.

Furthermore, the republicans have been trying to put forth the idea that a filibuster has never been used to block judicial nominations in the past and that it is unconstitutional. The simple fact is that they are wrong on this issue.

"That is simply untrue and also beside the point. Writing in the National Law Journal, attorney Joshua Spivak says that "since 1789, 33 of the 148 nominees for the highest court have either been rejected by a vote of the Senate, had the voting on their nomination repeatedly postponed or filibustered into nonexistence or eventually bowed out. In the 19th century, more than a third of the nominees went down to defeat." More recent harmony, Spivak says, was due mostly to Democratic domination of both the presidency and Congress. "

Republicans are also saying that the appointed judges deserve and up or down vote on the Senate floor.

"In his statement on the "nuclear option," Coleman says that senators have a "right to vote 'yes' or 'no' on judges." In fact, they have that right in a cloture vote; it simply takes 60 of them to advance a nomination. But the majority Republicans have been very good at denying senators that right by simply refusing to either allow any vote at all or by refusing in committee to even schedule a hearing on a nominee."

I think it is clear that it is the republicans' actions which are not supported by the constitution. The Democrats are using the only option that a minority party has in trying to protect their agenda and have their voice heard. It has been used by both Democrats and republicans all throughout our history on various issues. It is what the founding fathers meant to happen when they established rule by a reasonable majority.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

« Liberal Blogs »
Blogarama - The Blog Directory this is a Proud Liberal Site