| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The "Nuclear" option explained: |
| 2004-12-20 |
| A scenario for an unspecified day in 2005: One of President Bush's judicial nominations is brought to the Senate floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist makes a point of order that only a simple majority is needed for confirmation. The point is upheld by the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney. Democratic Leader Harry Reid challenges the ruling. Frist moves to table Reid's motion, ending debate. The motion is tabled, and the Senate proceeds to confirm the judicial nominee -- all in about 10 minutes. Read the rest at the link After reading this column I became extremely angry with the Republicans. If this option was available since becoming a majority, why in gods name haven't they exercised this option over the past two years? Are they afraid of upsetting the Democrats? Trust me, no matter what course of action the Republicans take, the Dems will not like it. Can you imagine the left defending why they are against Miguel Estrada? The main reasons they claim is that he refuses to answer stupid question from Senator Daschele and they are unsure if he will put a stop to killing babies. The better would have been to confirm him through this process and then leak that memo that shows Democratic collusion with NARAL and the ACLU. Trust me they would have been scurrying for cover, and not attacking a great man. Just three words from Nike Senator Frist: JUST DO IT! |
| Posted by:Cyber Sarge |
| #5 We'll see. They've been disappointing Me since late 1995, so I'm pessimistic (all My surprises are pleasant that way). Note, -Moose, that no one is trying to eliminate the Senate's vote, nor reasonable debate, just the filibuster. Note that there is no filibuster in the Constitution, nor in the Federalist Papers (unless I missed it). I actually favor the filibuster on legislation, even when the good guys have the majority. |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-12-20 8:38:06 PM |
| #4 Agreed that they love the spotlight. But sometimes they should just do the right thing BECAUSE it is the right thing to do. There are too many liberal judges ruling this country from behind the bench. If the bench was attempting to reverse tyranny then that would be one thing, what they are trting to impose is a liberal/socialists agenda on and in spite of the majority. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-12-20 5:53:44 PM |
| #3 Common Repubs, get some brass ones. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-12-20 5:37:29 PM |
| #2 CS - the ability to windbag in front of CSPAN and Network News is one of the choice perks in keeping relected. They'll never give that up voluntarily. A SCOTUS vote and subsequent grandstanding is something the Chuck Schumers, Ted Kennedy's, Joe Bidens, Chuck Hagels, John McCain's.... LIVE FOR |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-20 5:23:33 PM |
| #1 Constitutionally, the Senate is supposed to provide "advise and consent" to the President in several important things, mostly confirmations but also in treaties. It is one of their primary reasons for existing as a separate house from the House of Representatives. For this reason, they will probably never agree to surrender or dilute this power. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-12-20 5:08:45 PM |