[jammer]

Repubs may have to "go nuclear."
Let's hope they're up to it.

That sounds attractive, ostensibly. But a cautionary note: had the Republicans gone "nuclear" when they controlled the Senate in the early and mid-80's, we would have HillaryCare today. It was only Phil Gramm whipping the Democrat majority--with the filibuster option--that kept it from being rammed down our throats.

My rule of thumb is that anything (legal, of course) that prevents any deliberative government body from functioning is not only not bad, but a positive good. Another rule of thumb: anything we propose for a short-term solution is going to be used against us in the long-term, so we had better be able to stomach it.

[You Dirty Rats]

My rule of thumb is that anything (legal, of course) that prevents any deliberative government body from functioning is not only not bad, but a positive good.

I think the filibuster is a good idea for legislation, but not for confirming appointments. Also, I don't think stopping votes for or against confirmation of Presidential appointments is a "positive good." Leaving Cabinet Secretaries, Ambassadors, Judges, etc. vacant for long periods of time is not a good idea.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are assuming that the "nuclear" option, which is really the "constitutional" option, would eliminate the filibuster in the Senate for all purpose. That assumption is false. The option would eliminate the filibuster only for judicial appointments. It would remain in effect for ordinary legislation, which was your point about Hillary!Care.

Don't confuse the apples and the oranges.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "A Tale of Two Grinches, US and UN"