Cross-post note: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.
Nuclear background. Even Wikipedia has brought clarity to the often mentioned en passant nuclear option. Its great recap of this arcane procedural ploy includes:
The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
The straight forced filibuster is both slower and nastier. The cinematically educated immediately think of the 1939 Frank Capra classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. In it, the Jimmy Stewart character filibusters to collapse for the most moral and noble of causes. In the case of the current Senate, Republican filibuster would be reveal the basest and most ignoble of ruses. They would be displaying power under regressive Senate Rule 22, regardless of the harm to the country and world.
If Obama and the Democratic Senators made them show their colors once or twice, everyone would see their effete and destructive state. Many of those Senators would quickly crumble, knowing what it would do to their ability to hold office afterward.
If the Dems used the nuclear option, they could pass the necessary laws to start moving us out of the chaos we find ourselves in now. It would be faster, but the Republicans would have the option of spinning the results as some sort of perversion of process and democracy.
If they filibuster and have to backtrack and vote for the necessary shortly after, they will be crushed.
What is that the recent failed chief executive used to crow — bring it on!
I’m not a big fan of the nuclear option, but I’ve never understood why in cases like this the majority leader doesn’t force the minority to actually carry out their threat to filibuster.
<
p>I agree that the Dems should force the GOP to filibuster the stimulus bill. The sight of Mitch McConnell droning on while thousands more people are thrown out of work is something that the Republicans should be forced to present if they insist on continuing their obstructionism.
But the nuclear option is not going to be used until Pelosi and Reid wake up, or are replaced by people who are awake.
Pelosi is Speaker of the House where there is no filibustering so she’s out of this loop.
<
p>Reid doesn’t HAVE to even be on the floor of the Senate when this goes down. If the White House really wants to play hardball, send Joe Biden to the Capitol to do his job (President of the Senate, remember?) He can be in the chair when someone makes the point of order which sets in motion the elimination of the filibuster.
<
p>Can all the Dems be kept in line? I find myself converting to the side that says bipartisanship has outlived its usefulness in this particular debate. Why do Dems always seem have more trouble than Republicans following a President of their own party? As I recall Clinton and Carter encountered the same attitude.
<
p>I don’t understand why we don’t have more of a fighter than Reid as our Senate leader. Russ Feingold comes to mind as a possible alternative.
“Why do Dems always seem have more trouble than Republicans following a President of their own party?”
<
p>Maybe they have more guts, or more convictions. Maybe they don’t like the package.
I have often read that the idea of the filibuster is to promote consensus and comity between Senators. Given that is no longer even in the discussion, can we just dump the filibuster as well?
That would be nice, but Senate 22 has been in effect since 1917. That’s the 60-Senator majority folk have been exercised about – anything less and there aren’t enough votes to move on. Forget majority rules!
<
p>The silly thing is that the majority party goes all spineless when the minority pulls filibuster threats. If they don’t have the 60 votes, they pee their pants and complain about how unfair life is.
<
p>There’s next to no chance the Senate will drop 22. The House functions perfectly well without such a rule though.
<
p>So, the majority, in this case Democrats, needs some ‘nads. You want to filibuster and screw the country? Do it and we’ll see who pays the price.
<
p>Nice has its limits when the nation and world’s welfare are at stake.
Why haven’t our senators Kerry and Kennedy tried the nuclear option? Has anyone asked them? Even if it failed, it would still make a huge statement. Stop compromising America’s future for the sake of worthless, elusive bipartisanship!