OP-ED; NUCLEAR OPTION (HIGH SCHOOL)

The Nuclear Option

BOOM! And there goes the Senate. One issue is dividing the Senate like never before. The filibuster, a parliamentary tool to stop a vote, is about to go the way of the trolley and the five cent subway fare. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), will use another parliamentary tactic that will do away with it on judicial nominations, but this can have many unintended consequences.

This whole fight began in 2001, and is coming to a head now. The President has the power to appoint judges, as written in the Constitution. The Senate, as a check to executive power, has the capacity of “advice and consent.” The Senate confirms or denies the nominees by voting upon them. President Bush has nominated 205 judges, 195 of which have been confirmed. Three were denied, and seven have not received a vote.

Democrats have filibustered the nominations of these seven judges. A filibuster is a parliamentary weapon that can be used by a minority in the Senate. It involves the use of unlimited debate to obstruct the business of the Senate, essentially preventing a vote on a bill. The Senate doctrine of “double tracking” allows the Senate to continue other business as a filibuster goes on.

The filibuster originally became popular in the 1850s. In 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson had problems with the Senate, it agreed to have the opportunity to stop unlimited debate. The Senate adopted Rule 22, a “cloture rule,” which allowed a two-thirds vote of present Senators to stop the filibuster (Senate.gov). The cloture rule was amended in 1975 to force a solid 60-vote majority to end all debate.

The fight was timid and quiet until recently. Frist, in an obvious power grab, went on a television special called “Justice Sunday,” sponsored by the Family Research Council, an evangelical Christian right-wing interest group. The program was a “rally to portray Democrats as being ‘against people of faith.’ Many of the speakers compared the plight of conservative Christians to the civil rights movement,” (thenation.com). This was seen as Frist courting the religious right in his presumptive run for the White House in 2008. He called for an up or down vote on all judges.

Frist plans to “set a precedent” (Washingtonpost.com) in order for a simple majority (51 out of 100) to end debate on the Senate floor on judicial nominations. This is different than amending the Senate rules, which requires a two-thirds vote (Washingtonpost.com). He can do this by what is known as the “nuclear option.” Republicans call it the “constitutional option,” but the concept is the same.

The scenario most widely expected among senators in both parties is that he [Frist] would seek a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Cheney, if it looked as if the vote was going to be close -- that filibustering judicial nominations is out of order. Assuming the chair agreed, Reid would then object and ask that the ruling of the chair be tabled. Most Republicans would then vote against the Democratic motion, upholding the ruling. Then the Senate would move to a vote on [one of the judges], and a precedent will have been set that it takes 51 votes, not 60, to cut off debate on a judicial nomination. (WHOLE PARAGRAPH: Washingtonpost.com)

This action, will, in turn, stall the Senate to a total standstill. Democrats, in response to ridding the body’s ability to hold unlimited debate, will resort to other parliamentary options to slow all business of the Senate. One example is the call for the full reading of all bills proposed on the floor of the Senate. The budget for fiscal year 2006 is over 2000 pages long, imagine how long that would take!

The Senate is the only true deliberative body of the government, and stripping this right from the Senate will definitely be setting a precedent. The precedent will be further cutting of minority rights. This is only on executive nominations, but next, it could be the entire business of the Senate. The public will see the shredding of the Constitution for partisan gain as political opportunism and rid the Senate of the Republican waste currently housed there.

The Republicans decry obstruction, but of course, we all know this is hypocrisy. During President Clinton’s two terms, over 60 judges were neither confirmed nor denied for various reasons. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided not to hold hearings. He decided not to call votes. He did not allow the full Senate to vote on the judicial nominees. See the parallel?

The collegiality of the Senate is long gone. The ability for compromise may soon go along with it. This fight does not have to happen. Moderates are trying to negotiate a solution to this situation, but they will be reduced to good-willed roadkill. Both parties are playing to the extremes, and the polarization of the Senate is the result. The filibuster may not be perfect, but it is the only thing left protecting the country from the tyranny of the majority.


NOTE/ADDENDUM: The moderates of the Senate, fourteen of them, reached a deal. The Senators agreed to hold votes on three of the more controversial nominees, while ignoring two of the others. The Democrats keep the right to filibuster judicial nominees and anything else they desire. Think it’s all better? Not so fast. If one/both of the other two nominees are filibustered, the nuclear option may still be used. Frist sums it up in one sentence, “All options remain on the table.”