The 'nuclear option' has been averted

[MattK]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

nothing significant would have happened. The democrates called changing the fillabuster rules 'the nuclear option' for dramatic effect.

Do your research man, Trent Lott (R-Miss.) coined the phrase.

LA Times (03/16/05): "Such a ploy is considered so politically explosive within the Senate that when it was first proposed in 2003, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a former majority leader, described it as the "nuclear option."

[Joe Lambie]

In my opinion it saddens me that two of the more conservative judges will be moved past the filibuster, but at the same time I am happy. By ensuring the filibuster stays at its current status, the protection will remain in place for the soon to exist opening(s) on the Supreme Court. Yes you put some on the federal level you would not like to see, but even if they make a "bad" ruling now, you can ensure putting a good person on the Supreme Court to make any changes to the ruling through the appeals process. That to me is the bigger issue, as well as the aforementioned fact that the majority does not stay the majority forever (something that would most certainly have come back to bite the Republicans in the tail).

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Joe Lambie

In my opinion it saddens me that two of the more conservative judges will be moved past the filibuster, but at the same time I am happy. By ensuring the filibuster stays at its current status, the protection will remain in place for the soon to exist opening(s) on the Supreme Court. Yes you put some on the federal level you would not like to see, but even if they make a "bad" ruling now, you can ensure putting a good person on the Supreme Court to make any changes to the ruling through the appeals process. That to me is the bigger issue, as well as the aforementioned fact that the majority does not stay the majority forever (something that would most certainly have come back to bite the Republicans in the tail).

Actually, the democrats just eliminated that option. Since they agreed to this, if they filibuster when the supreme ct comes up, they'll have violated the agreement between them and the republicans, who will have no qualms in pointing this out and proceed to end the filibuster.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by MattK

Do your research man, Trent Lott (R-Miss.) coined the phrase.

LA Times (03/16/05): "Such a ploy is considered so politically explosive within the Senate that when it was first proposed in 2003, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a former majority leader, described it as the "nuclear option."

I dont agree - originally the republicans said "if you are going to break 230 years of tradition and block the presidents qualified and commitee approved judges by refusing to table the debate indefinately and allow a simple majority vote (as the constitution requires), then we have enough votes to make it clear that fillabusting appointments is not acceptable"

Nuclear in the sense that the democrats would not be able to stop the clarification of fillabuster rules.

But the democrates and the press have jumped on the term, and threatened a federal government shutdown (meltdown)

which would have been an act of desperation, and would have caused a huge backlash against the democrats in the senate.

Its only became 'politically explosive' because the democrats have threatened to 'take their ball and go home' so nobody can play, if they dont get their way.

the minority parrty in the senate does not have the right to dictate the religious beliefs or moral values of the judges appointed by the president. These appointees are fully qualified.

[Emily Pease]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I dont agree - originally the republicans said "if you are going to break 230 years of tradition and block the presidents qualified and commitee approved judges by refusing to table the debate indefinately and allow a simple majority vote (as the constitution requires), then we have enough votes to make it clear that fillabusting appointments is not acceptable"

Nuclear in the sense that the democrats would not be able to stop the clarification of fillabuster rules.

But the democrates and the press have jumped on the term, and threatened a federal government shutdown (meltdown)

which would have been an act of desperation, and would have caused a huge backlash against the democrats in the senate.

Its only became 'politically explosive' because the democrats have threatened to 'take their ball and go home' so nobody can play, if they dont get their way.

the minority parrty in the senate does not have the right to dictate the religious beliefs or moral values of the judges appointed by the president. These appointees are fully qualified.

Unfortunately, the lack of punctuation in this entry completely overshadows any point you may have hidden in there, Ken.

PS: It's FILLIBUSTER.

Originally Posted by Cory

The backlash would be enormous, and while I like to make fun of them, I have to think that at least some of them are smart enough to know that in a relatively short amount of time, they will be in the position of the democrats and need the filibuster themselves.

I agree completely.

[KenWittlief]

Ok, sorry about that

didnt mean to shortchange anyone

here is some punctuation to make up for what I left out

sprinkle away as you see fit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

: : : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

hope this helps

let me know if you need more :^)