Sen. Harry Reid and the "Nuclear Option"
i had written senator reid earlier in the week, supporting him on his opposition to changing senate filibuster rules... he sent back a nice email (not something you can always expect from your elected officials these days) reaffirming his strong opposition... then, today, i read kargo x's excellent analysis posted at daily kos on senate rules where he set forth an extremely disturbing scenario which promoted me to fire off another one...
----------------------
Dear Senator Reid,
I greatly appreciate your reply and take comfort from your stance against changing the filibuster rules. I am concerned, however, that raw opposition may not be enough if the following scenario plays out. For example -
Facing a filibuster on the nomination of former Interior Department counsel William G. Myers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (or on the motion to take up the nomination), Frist will posit a point of order to the Senate's presiding officer. In all likelihood, Vice President Cheney will have taken the chair for this purpose.
Frist's point of order will posit: 1) that debate has gone on long enough, and; 2) that because the Constitution requires the Senate's advice and consent on judicial appointments, preventing a vote on that consent is unconstitutional.
If he wants to make a further point, he might also posit: 3) that Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives each house of Congress the right to determine its own rules of procedure, and; 4) that therefore the Senate may, under Art. I, Sec. 5, vote by a simple majority to change the rules, henceforth to permit ending debate on judicial nominations (and/or motions to consider such nominations) by majority vote.
Strictly speaking, though, all the situation requires is a point of order raising issues #1 and #2. Raising numbers 3 and 4 might help save time on the next nominations brought under consideration, but that's it. In other words, the "nuclear option" doesn't even require an actual change to Senate rules. It depends only on getting a favorable ruling from the presiding officer.
The Senate rules -- notwithstanding provisions for their continuation from one Congress to the next, or their requirement that changes be approved by 2/3 vote -- would now be... what Dick Cheney says they are.
This would be an unconscionable tragedy as I'm sure you would agree. Please, whatever is within your power to do to prevent this from happening, I urge you to do it. I have to confess that, for the first time in my 57 years, I am deeply afraid for the future of our country.
Thanks again for your time and attention and the very best of luck to you and your colleagues in the difficult weeks and months ahead.
Best regards, Submit To Propeller
Tweet
----------------------
Dear Senator Reid,
I greatly appreciate your reply and take comfort from your stance against changing the filibuster rules. I am concerned, however, that raw opposition may not be enough if the following scenario plays out. For example -
Facing a filibuster on the nomination of former Interior Department counsel William G. Myers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (or on the motion to take up the nomination), Frist will posit a point of order to the Senate's presiding officer. In all likelihood, Vice President Cheney will have taken the chair for this purpose.
Frist's point of order will posit: 1) that debate has gone on long enough, and; 2) that because the Constitution requires the Senate's advice and consent on judicial appointments, preventing a vote on that consent is unconstitutional.
If he wants to make a further point, he might also posit: 3) that Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives each house of Congress the right to determine its own rules of procedure, and; 4) that therefore the Senate may, under Art. I, Sec. 5, vote by a simple majority to change the rules, henceforth to permit ending debate on judicial nominations (and/or motions to consider such nominations) by majority vote.
Strictly speaking, though, all the situation requires is a point of order raising issues #1 and #2. Raising numbers 3 and 4 might help save time on the next nominations brought under consideration, but that's it. In other words, the "nuclear option" doesn't even require an actual change to Senate rules. It depends only on getting a favorable ruling from the presiding officer.
The Senate rules -- notwithstanding provisions for their continuation from one Congress to the next, or their requirement that changes be approved by 2/3 vote -- would now be... what Dick Cheney says they are.
This would be an unconscionable tragedy as I'm sure you would agree. Please, whatever is within your power to do to prevent this from happening, I urge you to do it. I have to confess that, for the first time in my 57 years, I am deeply afraid for the future of our country.
Thanks again for your time and attention and the very best of luck to you and your colleagues in the difficult weeks and months ahead.
Best regards, Submit To Propeller
Tweet
posted by profmarcus at
4/02/2005
