It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Understanding Republican 'Nuclear Option' (from ATSNN)

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:05 PM
Since this is unprecedented in politics, we need to understand the repercussions of whether or not it is done.
How difficult is an up or down vote to comprehend?
This may affect us of both political persuasions for decades to come.
A Senate rule such as the filibuster may only be changed by the consent of a two-thirds majority. At least, that's the rules of the Senate as they stood for 200 years, but Bill Frist and George W. Bush don't like it. So the first rule they'll have to break is the rule that says you need 67 senators to change a Senate rule:

To get there, Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote -- 67 of 100 senators -- to change the chamber's rules. Republicans will argue that they are attempting to set a precedent, not change the Senate rules, to disallow the use of filibusters as a delaying tactic on judicial nominations.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

As far as it concerns the right wing 'swing' this may possibly be done mostly because judges have never been treated this way on the source of confirmation.
The overwhelming fear of potential Supreme Court judges is clouding the vision of those who will cause this to come about.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by siriuslyone]

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:55 PM
1. "Both" political persuasions? There are more than two here in America.

2. Filibustering is not a right. A filibuster can be broken, but one hasn't before. Filibusters enjoy the precedent of *tradition*.

3. Related to the above mentioned "tradition" of filibustering is the *custom* of *allowing it*. It's going to take more than George W. Bush to break that tradition and change the customs, whether he likes it or not. He's not the first person to be angered by not getting his way due to filibustering.

4. I wouldn't call a 2/3rds Senate vote a "nuclear option" by any means.
EDIT (Although I see that THEY are.)


[edit on 26-5-2005 by Zipdot]

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 02:08 PM
Reps and dems got a compromise, they get the woman(forgot her name) on the bench and others are being considered while there will be no "nuclear option" in the senate. I think it was a good compromise and the solution benefits all parties.


log in