Skip to main content

View Diary: It's not about "secret holds." It's about the filibuster. (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ahhh. (0+ / 0-)

    I see. Well, as I recall, there was a time when they did try to rename "the nuclear option" as "the Constitutional option" - but perhaps it developed a life of its own later.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Mon May 10, 2010 at 08:12:08 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  They tried to use an existing name for it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raptavio

      The "constitutional option" was the name used for the plan to make such changes at the beginning of a new Congress outlined by the conservative scholars Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta in 2004. When the Republicans found they were on the short end of the PR stick with the "nuclear option" terminology, they hoped to switch over to the use of the already existing "constitutional option" language without anybody noticing.

      But in so doing, they had to ignore Gold and Gupta's basic premise, which was that this was doable at the beginning of a new Congress, not mid-session. So it was sort of an after-the-fact thing that the nuclear option became defined as the mid-session, damn-the-precedents approach, while the constitutional option remained the beginning-of-a-new-Congress version.

      •  Now that (0+ / 0-)

        is something I did not know. Interesting.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Tue May 11, 2010 at 06:35:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site