DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

Do you support the Nuclear Option?

  • No, I do not!

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Yes, I do!

    Votes: 8 50.0%
  • I don't know / I don't have an opinion

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Total voters
    16
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/18/filibuster.fight/index.html

As you may or may not have heard in recent weeks... the Republican party is contemplating changing the rules of the Senate on judicial nominees... being aptly-named the "Nuclear Option". Currently, 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster. The Republicans want to change that to a simple majority, i.e., 51 votes.

I think this is a big mistake by the Republicans if they choose to implement it, for two main reasons:

- The Republican party won't be in power forever.

- Public support for this "Nuclear Option" is low.

If this "Nuclear Option" were implemented, there would be no checks on Republican power .

What do you think of the Nuclear Option?
 
  • Like
Reactions: alderran

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
This might be fun! :D I can't fathom anyone being in favor of "The Nuclear Option". What a silly phrase for this debacle anyway. It's clear that the obstructionist boys and girls need to quit crying over the last election and do their job. Think they will? :grinno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Treppenwolf said:
This might be fun! :D I can't fathom anyone being in favor of "The Nuclear Option". What a silly phrase for this debacle anyway. It's clear that the obstructionist boys and girls need to quit crying over the last election and do their job. Think they will? :grinno:
Actually, it's a rather apt phrase. If the Republicans don't get what they want, they threaten to change the rules so they can.

The Republicans blocked a bunch of Clinton's nominees too... which is maybe why former senator Bob Dole has cautioned against the Nuclear Option.

What you see as being "obstructionists" is really the Democrats doing what the people who elected them want done. They're "doing their job" just fine: representing the people who elected them.

Were Republicans.. when Clinton was in the White House.. being "obstructionists" when they refused Clinton's nominees? No. Are Democrats being "obstructionists" now? No.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
CaptainMorgan said:
I voted yes, just to be a dick.
Okay, but how do you really feel about the situation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
Actually, it's a rather apt phrase. If the Republicans don't get what they want, they threaten to change the rules so they can.

The Republicans blocked a bunch of Clinton's nominees too... which is maybe why former senator Bob Dole has cautioned against the Nuclear Option.

What you see as being "obstructionists" is really the Democrats doing what the people who elected them want done. They're "doing their job" just fine: representing the people who elected them.

Were Republicans.. when Clinton was in the White House.. being "obstructionists" when they refused Clinton's nominees? No. Are Democrats being "obstructionists" now? No.
O.K., continuing with the fun here:
Nuclear option...total destruction of things as we once knew them. I can assure you that no matter which direction this fiasco takes, politics as we have all come to know and love will continue. Yes, the Republicans kept nominees in committee. President Clinton flooded the Judiciary committee in the last few months of his presidency in order to try to place as many liberal judges as possible. He had every right to do this. That is part of our president's perogative and job description. Did the Republicans obstruct? Yes, they stalled for time, knowing a Republican would soon assume the executive office. Now, we are arguing tit-for-tat? Childish. Doing their job? "the Democrats doing what the people who elected them want done."? I have never met a citizen that claimed to vote to send a representitive in order to filibuster.
I'm certain that most of us realize that this circus is not about procedure. It is issue driven. The biggest issue at the moment...Roe v. Wade. There are other lesser issues, but I won't bring them up lest this thread degenerate into another "Mark bashing session". I personally feel strongly that a woman has a right to choose. I think the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a terrible mistake. I think that radical fundementalists have their agenda, but their following in society is highly over-rated and needlessly feared.
So, to briefly sum things up.
Nuclear option: silly moniker.
Democrats filibustering in judicial committee: childish and completely counterproductive. There are better, far more mature options.
Are we still having fun? :let_it_al
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,893 Posts
The nuclear option = Bend over spred your cheeks for the big missle in the sky ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Back in 1975, the Senate's rules on breaking filibusters were changed by majority leader Robert Byrd... from requiring 2/3rds to the current 3/5ths.

Bill Frist isn't looking to put it back to 2/3rds.. because he doesn't have 2/3rds anymore than he has 3/5ths. He wants to put it to a simple majority (51 votes) because, not only would he have control now... but even if the Republicans lost 4 seats, they'd still be able to break a filibuster.

In the end, though, it seems that both parties have played on both sides of the fence on this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Treppenwolf said:
I have never met a citizen that claimed to vote to send a representitive in order to filibuster.
As you said, this isn't about procedure.. but about issues. It is also about power, both now and in the future. The Republicans want to change the rules so they can push through whichever nominees they want. The Democrats are filibustering over a handful of those nominees that they claim would legislate from the bench. While the voters who put Democratic senators in office didn't send them there so they could filibuster... they did send them there to stand up for their side on the issues. Were this not the case, support for Frist's rule-changing-proposal would be much higher.

Call Frist's proposal what you want... if you want to get bogged down in semantics.

There are better, far more mature options.
Indeed... and these options are being negotiated upon by both sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Peppa Boy said:
The nuclear option = Bend over spred your cheeks for the big missle in the sky ?
It is generally better to read the background material before voting or asking what the issue is about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
I am not sure where the problem is. Sure it works out in the Republicans favor now, but I guarantee it will come full-circle and work in the Democrats favor some other time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
It is also about power, both now and in the future.
Absolutely correct. As much as we hate to admit it, our primal instincts still rule.
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
The Republicans want to change the rules so they can push through whichever nominees they want.
That depends on intrepetation of constitutional history.
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
... they did send them there to stand up for their side on the issues.
Filibustering in judicial committee, a cowardly tactic only once before used in the history of our government, is not standing up for the liberal side of issues. Presenting a reasonable argument in organized debate in order to convince others to join the liberal viewpoint is "standing up". Voting , whether up or down, is "standing up".
00ChryslerIntrepid said:
Call Frist's proposal what you want... if you want to get bogged down in semantics.
Oh My! :wow:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Treppenwolf said:
Presenting a reasonable argument in organized debate in order to convince others to join the liberal viewpoint is "standing up".
Yeah, like that's going to work in this case. It's been done... to no avail.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top