Senate Majority Leader said yesterday that he has the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules to prevent Democratic filibusters against Bush's judicial nominees. Referred to as the "nuclear option" for the dangerous precedent it would set, this rule change would severely hamper the Democrats' ability to prevent ultra-conservative right wing judges form being confirmed. This is a particular concern considering the high likelihood of several Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years.
See the Extended Entry for more, and the Washington Times article about it. For more Senate news and 2006 elections, visit my blog, http://oursenate.com
While the "nuclear option" would certainly help the Republicans confirm Bush's reactionary judicial nominees, its incomprehensible to me that they aren't considering the possibility of them being in the minority again at some point in the future, where this rule change will work against them. While Frist argues that the Democrats violated precedent by filibustering judicial nominees, changing Senate rules to prevent filibusters is an even more dangerous breach of precedent, and its repercussions are likely to hurt Republicans as well as Democrats in the future (hopefully as soon as 2006).
From The Washington Times:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he has the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules and make it easier for Republicans to overcome Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees, but he hopes such a change won't be necessary.
"We need to restore the over 200-year tradition and precedent of allowing every nominee of the president who has majority support an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Mr. Frist told The Washington Times on Thursday.
"It's consistent with the Constitution, where we are as a body to give advice and consent, and the only way we can give advice and consent is an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."
Mr. Frist said he has not made a decision on whether he will force the rule change the first time that Democrats filibuster a nominee.
...
Asked about the so-called "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules to bar filibusters against executive nominations, Mr. Frist said that would be a "constitutional option."
"The nuclear option is what they did to me last year when they changed the precedent," he said.
But although he warned in the opening session that he is ready to employ the option, he said last week that he won't necessarily do it at the first filibuster against a judicial nominee.
"The specific decision has not been made," he said. "I've got some pretty clear alternatives to use and, again, I'll just continue to appeal to the other side."
read the full article at
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050214-121801-4700r.htm