Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
nothing significant would have happened. The democrates called changing the fillabuster rules 'the nuclear option' for dramatic effect.
in reality, the democrates themselves have changed the fillabuster rules many times over the years, and the government did not melt down as a result
the democrates were only crying foul because it wasnt their finger on the 'nuclear button'
this time
|
Guh... Yes “the nuclear option” is a term used for dramatic effect, but this isn’t the only inflammatory term like this used in the history of American politics (i.e. partial-birth abortion, activist judges, etc.). Not to mention that your statement is actually incorrect, the term “nuclear option” was actually originally coined by the Republicans in this case (then they later renamed the plan the “constitutional option”).
The following is a very nice “cliff’s notes” version of the history of the filibuster in American Politics that I’m lifting from WikiPedia.
Quote:
|
“In 1789, the First US Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806 this rule was eliminated, allowing the filibuster to become an option for delay and blocking of floor votes, since this left no mechanism for terminating debate. In 1917 a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted. From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senate (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a large minority to affect legislation.”
|
Obviously, the reduction in the number of votes needed to enact “cloture” wasn’t a purely political move with regards to civil rights. The two plans (removing the necessity for cloture, period… and lowering the number of necessary votes for cloture from 60 to 51) in this situation are purely politically motivated; attempting to force 7 exceptionally conservative Bush judicial nominations through the senate, which is a party line issue.
Your apparent disdain for the Democrats’ “crying foul” is saddening. It’s too bad that you feel no sympathy for a minority whose rights were/are being threatened. A minority with no rights is hardly a democracy, and this should never be the case no matter who the majority/minority is.
Getting back to my feelings on this “resolution,” I’m very disappointed in it. The Democrats, mainly the spineless Harry Reid, have collectively bent over and not even kept Owen or Brown from their inevitable confirmation. This was another lame showing my Senate Democrats, and I’m disappointed in many of my party’s senators.