Salon: Everything you wanted to know about the "nuclear option"

[paineinthearse]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/12/nuclear_option_primer/index_np.html



Everything you wanted to know about the "nuclear option"
If the Republicans are as good as their word, it's going to be much uglier than you think.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Tim Grieve

May 12, 2005 | To hear the partisans on either side describe it, the coming debate over Bill Frist's plan to kill the filibuster is a thing of apocalyptic proportions. Focus on the Family's James Dobson - http://www.family.org/fmedia/broadcast/a0036354.cfm - says the ground in Washington is "almost too hot to walk on" right now, that the faithful are in their "foxholes" and the "bullets are flying overhead." Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean - http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050509-113025-1569r.htm - says Republicans are fixing to "blow up 200 years of Senate history" just because they're not getting their way on a handful of "radical" judicial nominees. On Capitol Hill, the threat of the "nuclear option" has created a sort of political ground zero, and activists on both sides believe that the way this thing plays out will control the shape of the federal judiciary -- and with it, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution -- for decades to come.

Out there in America, it's a different story. The latest Gallup Poll - http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=16195 - reveals that only 35 percent of the country admits to following the filibuster fight closely -- more than will fess up to watching the Michael Jackson trial closely, but a little fewer than the percentage who claimed to be paying attention to the situation in Kosovo in 1999.

So if you haven't been giving your undivided attention to Priscilla Owen - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/12/priscilla_owen -, Abe Fortas -- he's dead, but he plays into this -- and the intricacies of Senate Rule XXII, you can feel proud that you're right in the middle of the American mainstream. But now it's time to pay attention. A vote on Frist's "nuclear option" may come as early as next week, and we're here to help you get up to speed.

much more.....

[On the Road]

1. This is Going to be Something to Watch

Here's the key. We'll see how far Republicans are willing to go:

:popcorn:

But aren't there rules about changing the rules in the middle of the game?

Yes, there are. Senators may amend the Standing Rules of the Senate by a simple majority vote. But -- and you saw this coming, didn't you? -- proposals to change the Senate's rules are subject to filibuster, too. So if Republicans simply followed the rules about changing the rules, and if Democrats filibustered the rule change, as they surely would, then Republicans would need to cobble together enough votes to prevail on a cloture motion.

That's 60, right?

Well, no. While it takes three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 votes, to cut off debate on most things, the Senate has previously recognized that changing the rules of the game should require something more. Thus, Senate Rule XXII says that debate on a "a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules" can't be cut off without an "affirmative vote" from "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." That means that Frist would need 67 votes to cut off debate on a change in the Senate's rules. With only 55 Republicans in the Senate, and at least two of them unequivocally opposed to the nuclear option, Frist can't possibly get 60 votes to change the Senate's rules, let alone the 67 that Rule XXII requires.