Senate filibuster rule and the "nuclear option"

[Dynasty]

In a Wall Street Journal acticle, this section described a "nuclear option" which would put an end to the 60-vote filibusters which can be used by the Democrats to stop Republican efforts.

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Democrats' unprecedented filibuster of 10 appeals-court nominees, Sen. Frist announced his intention to go "nuclear" if they try the same tactic again. Under the "nuclear option," Senate rules would be reinterpreted so that 51 votes, not a supermajority of 60, would be needed to end debate on judicial nominees and move to an up-or-down vote on the floor. The Constitution requires a majority of senators to confirm a president's selection and all of the nominees filibustered in Mr. Bush's first term would have been confirmed by bipartisan majorities if the Senate had been permitted to hold a vote.

Mr. Frist has threatened to go nuclear before--but this time there's reason to believe he means it. Reinterpreting the filibuster rules would require a simple majority vote, and in a Senate with a Republican majority of 55 that should be doable--even with the anti-nuclear Sens. Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voting no. Sen. Arlen Specter, who's slated to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is on board too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anybody understand the Senate rules concerning filibusters? Can anybody provide a link about this "nuclear option" and whether it has been used before?

[BadBoyBenny]

I just think it sounds funny that Frist is threatening to go nuclear on the Democrats.

[lastchance]

just something I dug up

[Randy_Refeld]

I know Chuck Muth has been calling for this since the filibusters began. www.chuckmuth.com might have something about this.


RR

[ACPlayer]

Definition of cloture

Definition of filibuster

Fox news on history of filibuster


Used to be indefinite debate on a topic was possible. Then changed to cloture requiring 2/3 vote then 60% and perhaps soon to 50%. Basically it means that in the senate a simple majority is all that is required.

Note that in the past the threat of the filibuster has been used by both parties to keep the majority in check. Even if a filibuster never came about just that threat has value for the minority.

The risk at the moment is that it would mean that any legistlative matter that the admin wanted would be passed easily. The long term risk is that this power would then be with every administration and, perhaps, an important check in the system would be removed.
The nuclear option

THis would be a method to change the rules of the senate by a procedural move rather than by having the senate vote to change the rules, which would require a 2/3 vote.

[lastchance]

That's one side, and a very strong side. But the other side is that there a lot of judge seats which are sitting empty, and system has grind to a complete halt.

[ACPlayer]

It is my understanding that the proposed rule change is only for judicial nominations.

However, the precedent would be established.

[ACPlayer]

Are there any historical statistics on judicial vacancies? Some of us have trouble believing rhetoric from Washington.

[Taxman]

This view is actually just right wing spin. The Senate has approved a ton of judges during the Bush administration (I forget the numbers, but I thought I read 200+), while something like 11 have been blocked by fillibusters. I don't think they are foolish enough to do much more than that. I think eliminiating the fillibuster is a bad idea. Sooner or later Democrats will take control of the senate again and the Republicans would probably regret losing the power of the fillibuster.

[lastchance]

You are correct in that I was spewing crap (my bad), I do not think that your statistics about the amount that has been filibustered is the full truth.

I think there have been many more judges who's appointments have been delayed by the filibuster than have the ones that have actually been blocked. There are also 11 judgeships which have been declared judicial emergencies which can't seem to get a judge on them to lighten the caseload.

I don't think this is anything new, though. Just a bit overly publicised this year, you're right.