Democrats Warn GOP on Using 'Nuclear Option'

AP ^ | 1-16-05

[inquest]

WASHINGTON — The Senate's Democratic leader said Sunday that Republicans "would rue the day" if they try to make it harder for Democrats to stall judicial nominees who could not get a vote last year. But Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he hoped a new "optimistic" climate would take hold now that Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is the top Democrat, succeeding the defeated Tom Daschle of South Dakota, whom the GOP labeled an obstructionist.

[inquest]

Frist could invoke the "nuclear option" by having the Senate president, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that filibustering violates the body's constitutional duty of advice and consent to judicial nominations.

Such a ruling would be incorrect. The Constitution does not require the Senate to advise and consent; it merely states that such advice and consent is needed before the President can make any appointments.

It's really simple: if the President wants his nominees considered, he needs to take advantage of that bully pulpit of his and push for it - name names of Senators, if necessary, and demand that they publicly explain what's wrong with his nominees.

[BullDog108]

I say NUKE THEM. The kinder we are to the rats, the more they bite us. Time to bring the hardballs out....

[FreePaul]

I don't care what "options" are used to get judicial appointees approved. Just get it done. I believe that the main reason the ACLU and others are bringing so many challenges lately is their fear that there is going to be a whole new judiciary. Anything they can get approved by tame judges now will delay future damage to their leftist agenda.

[Texas Eagle]

Frist can't let the RATS set the tone for the debate. Every time they call it "the nuclear option", he should respond with, "This is the Constitutional option."

[CAluvdubya]

try to make it harder for Democrats to stall judicial nominees

What an odd thing to say. Is that the same as "Don't make it hard for us to make it hard for you"? Confusing isn't it? LOL

[No Longer Free State]

Since when does blocking the rest of the Senate from providing that advice and consent constitute a Constitutional act?

[Starhopper]

You Know the dems would use the "nuclear option" if given the chance. They wouldnt hesitate. Hypocrites.

[writer33]

Anything but the nuclear option. :) Denote sarcasm.

[Young Werther]

Yeah we all know what doofae the Dimbulbs are. I suppose they will run off to Canada if they don't get their way. Kinda like the Dimbulbs did here in Texas they DeLay redistricted them!!!

[Let's Roll]

They're bluffing - like slammies - if they really had something up their sleeves, the last thing they would do is warn us.

[Non-Sequitur]

Frist could invoke the "nuclear option" (search) by having the Senate president, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that filibustering violates the body's constitutional duty of advice and consent to judicial nominations. Such rulings can be upheld with a simple majority.

The Constitution does not give the Vice-President the authority to rule on what is Constitutional and what is not. Any such ruling on the part of the Vice-President would wind up in court, eventually before the Supreme Court. And if they rule against the Vice-President and the Majority Leader then the judicial candidate is back to square one and the administration looks stupid.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

BD108, good post. Give a RAT an inch opn a compromise and they keep it for life. Later they get another and another without ever "giving it back." IMO

[fish hawk]

We already "rue" the day. Now let us "RULE" the day. I say that we do any damn thing we want. That is what they did when they were in power. It's our 50 years now.

[G Larry]

Interesting how the dem's insist that President Bush's win doesn't mean that the people approve of "ANYTHING" he wants to accomplish.

[only1percent]

Rather the contrary is true. Traditionally the courts have deferred ENTIRELY to the presiding officers and rule-making bodies of the houses of Congress on the question of what the Constitution dictated insofar as their rules and procedures. These have always been regarded as "political questions" over which the courts have no jurisdiction.

[CAluvdubya]

I guess it's just my weird sense of humor but lately the dims just make me laugh. As they try everything they can think of to put up roadblocks, the sillier they sound.

[Embraer2004]

NUKE THEM!!! No mercy for the defeated Dems. Since when the victor has to bow to the vanquished? President Bush deserves to have an up and down vote on his nominees...I say, to Hell with the Democrats, we have the advantage and NUKE THEM!!

[Siegfried]

Actually, it's being mis-labeled by the leftist media (like AP). It's not the "nuclear" option, it's the constitutional option.

Suck it up Demo's. You brought it on yourself by your obstructionism.

[EagleUSA]

The filthy DemoRats need to be stomped on, real hard, and for all to see. The Repubs need to control their agenda, legally, and with the majority position they have. It is about time. Frist, et al, do have options -- they should use them against the worst enemy this country has....the socialist/leftists in our own Congress.

[No Longer Free State]

The Constitution does not give the Vice-President the authority to rule on what is Constitutional and what is not. Any such ruling on the part of the Vice-President would wind up in court, eventually before the Supreme Court. And if they rule against the Vice-President and the Majority Leader then the judicial candidate is back to square one and the administration looks stupid.

But the Senate rules DO. And that's what this is all about -- Senate Rules. Even if someone did sue, the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it because it's about the internal workings of one of the other branches. The Constitutional Option would definitely get the immediate goal. Not sure how it would work out in the long run, though.