Going nuclear

I know it's not good form to just take something off the net and copy it, but hell, this is my blog.

From Salon's War Room column - which rules - some scary thoughts about the future of the Senate.

The thing is, these people (you know, those people) are acting like there will be no price to pay for their arrogance, like there's no tomorrow. It's obvious to even the most casual observer that if you get rid of the filibuster, sooner or later it will bite you in the ass because you will not always be the majority party. Unless.

Unless :
a) no more happy democracy for us or
b) end times.

Just a thought. Anyway, here it is:

Bill Frist's "nuclear option"

Though William Rehnquist is slated to swear in President Bush in January, you can probably bet the farm at this point that the ailing 79-year-old chief justice won't stay on the bench much longer. Many expect his departure to usher in an incendiary period of battle over judicial nominations, particularly as emboldened right-wing activists put increasing pressure on President Bush to tap anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage hard-liners for the job.

According to the Washington Post, the coming battle may have Capitol Hill on the brink of a meltdown -- with Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist threatening to use the full arsenal at his disposal.

"As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist. Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the 'nuclear option,' to thwart such filibusters.

"'One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end,' he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a 'formula for tyranny by the minority.'"

The "nuclear option" explained:

"At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures. It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices."

The Dems are responding with some brinkmanship of their own:

"If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up." -- Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Use of the nuclear option "would make the Senate look like a banana republic ... and cause us to try to shut it down in every way. Social Security and tax reform need Democratic support. If they use the nuclear option, in all likelihood they would not get Democratic support [for those and other initiatives]." -- Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-NY.

-- Mark Follman