Cheney Attempts to Use "Nuclear Option"

Vice President Dick Cheney is attempting to implement what has been called the "Nuclear Option," which would, in effect, disallow fillabustering, thereby allowing the political party with the majority full control over House and Senate decisions. This action would effectively silence the minority party, and allow for a one party system in the United States Government. The right to fillibuster has been in place for well over 200 years, virtually since the country's inception.



If this was allowed to happen, this would effectively kill the voice of the minority party in the government, and lead us into a one-party system. One step closer to complete unchecked rule by the majority party. This could spell disaster for the United States, as the ability to fillibuster has been one of the things keeping the system of checks and balances in place within the government, and disallowing a single party from taking complete control.

Related News Links:
www.nationalreview.com
www.democrats.us
www.hillnews.com

Edit: Title Only

[edit on 26-3-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Won't happen.

Almighty hell will be let loose by the Democrats. Quorum calls and christmas tree bills would tie up the Senate indefinitely.

Didn't happen, actually.
This is dated November 2004 .... 4 months later and we haven't seen it yet.

Nice observation, nothing ever happens after a period of 4 months.

But seriously, I doubt it will happen too.

Actually, we're still a few weeks away from the vote. According to www.independentjudiciary.org... and www.moveonpac.org... we're still a few weeks from the vote. Technically, this is still current news.

Nerdling as a fellow Scotsman, in the name of all thats holy please sort out that avatar.

I mean......... McFly? Have some self respect man.

Nevah. McFly till I die.

Just got my T-Shirt too.

Whiskey anyone?

FFS the little boarding school bred never-saw-a woman-till-sex-ed-was introduced little gimp looks like he's pissed his pants even in that photo.

For once I'm thankful for text speak, I can't tell if you're serious or not. You've got the benefit of the doubt for now...

It won't happen unless republicans get 60 votes in the senate. What's that do you might say? Cancel a fillibuster! Because if they try to remove the fillibuster, they would just fillibuster it!dur.... time to go back and vote in those little black box's is in 2006, that's when we will finally have to learn the phrase... 'You can't do this I'm an american citizen!!!'

[edit on 3-4-2005 by djpaec]

It's about time Republicans stand up to Democrats. Democrats are all for free speech unless it effects them.

Democrats, stop shutting down free speech for our elected representatives, and let the Senate vote on judges.

The Constitution gives the President power the select judges, it also gives the majority in the Senate the power to make the rules.

This is 100% Constitutional, so why the scare tactics? And why in over 200 years of this process are this Presidents judicial choices being scrutinized so harshly?

It has alot to do with fear. Democrats hold no power, and for them to lose the judiciary would be a death knell for them.

Originally posted by Carseller4
It's about time Republicans stand up to Democrats. Democrats are all for free speech unless it effects them.

Well that sure sounds like a biased opinion with no source of proof......

Democrats, stop shutting down free speech for our elected representatives, and let the Senate vote on judges.

Well, the same could be said for the republicans attempting to cancel out the voice of the Democrats in the Senate......

The Constitution gives the President power the select judges, it also gives the majority in the Senate the power to make the rules.

I dont think that is in question here.

This is 100% Constitutional, so why the scare tactics? And why in over 200 years of this process are this Presidents judicial choices being scrutinized so harshly?

There is nothing constitutional about denying the minority senate members a voice.

It has alot to do with fear. Democrats hold no power, and for them to lose the judiciary would be a death knell for them.

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with what is being percieved by the Democratic party as an attempt to make any voice still held by them null.

Cant you accept that maybe BOTH parties should be trying to work together to weed out who and what is causing all the strife in this nation? The fact is, if this is passed, we will no longer have a two party senate. Only the majority voice will be held. Now how will you feel about that if in four more years the power roles switch? It doesnt look very promising now does it?.........

Originally posted by Nerdling
Nevah. McFly till I die.

Just got my T-Shirt too.

Whiskey anyone?

Well I am no Scot but a wee dram never hurt anyoe did it?

You know that Clinton had some controversial judicial appointments during his 8 years. The Republicans had the supposed power to block them by filibuster, but did not. All of his appointments, just like all appointments for the last 200 years where confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate.

Where do the Democrats come off by trying to mess with tradition and the Constitution?

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Carseller4]

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Carseller4]

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Carseller4]

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Carseller4]

Originally posted by Carseller4
The Republicans had the supposed power to block them by filibuster, but did not.

This is where I think you are getting a bit confused. The Republicans had the power to do so. Whether or not they filibustered is not an issue. The issue is that the Republicans had the power of fillibuster when they were the minority power in office. Now that they are the majority, the republicans introducing this farce are trying to take away the very same power from the current minority which they held a mere 5 years ago. I believe the problem in this lies with some people seeing the Republicans as saying "You are not worthy of this authority therefore you may not have it." You need to step back and look at the whole picture here carseller; there is more at stake here than a few of the presidents buddies getting judicial positions.

Carseller your correct the consititution gives the President the power to select judge, but the constitution gives the congress the power to confrim that position or not. And I'm against the idea of removing the filibuster because it gives the minority power no power, and you know why they want to remove the filibuster on decisions? Because of a few things Bush wants to get passed, Social Security Reform, Conservative Judges nominated so in ten years to stop abortion. BUT in a way I can't wait for the Republicans to get their way, so they can be replaced in 2006 . the public would wake up and say one party has too much power and the democrats come back in swing.

DEMOCRATS take back house in 2006, Democrats take back senate & the whitehouse in 2008!

Originally posted by Carseller4

The Constitution gives the President power the select judges, it also gives the majority in the Senate the power to make the rules.

The fillibuster has not been used properly in decades. The last one was used around the time Robert KKK Byrd was using it against Civil Rights legislation.

A fillibuster use to be a Senator, or group of them talking for hours on end...nonstop. Now they just vote to use a fillibuster?

It is almost like a Democrat hunger strike. OK, you don't eat for 1 hour then I won't eat for an hour, and we can make this hunger strike last forever!

hahahahaha

*pauses*
" This action would effectively silence the minority party, and allow for a one party system in the United States Government. The right to fillibuster has been in place for well over 200 years, virtually since the country's inception. "
*pauses*

hahahahaha

Sorry, without a fillibuster, congressional debate would still exist. The lack of a fillibuster does not mean a lack of debate or voice. Instead, one person could not hold up debate (i.e. the infamous reading from a phone book to congress) under the guise of "extended debate."

Want some examples of the fillibuster being used responsibly?

"In 1935, Sen. Huey Long of Louisiana suspended passage of a bill by lecturing on the Constitution, section by section. When he ran out of text, he recited recipes for fried oysters and something called "potlikkers." "

"In the early 1990s, Sen. Al D'Amato resorted to song—including, one observer recalls—The Yellow Rose of Texas. And on Wednesday, Sen. Robert Byrd kept tradition alive by reminiscing about the courtship of his wife."

slate.msn.com...

Fillibuster rules have changed before, and I'm sure they will change again. After all, constitutionally, the senate governs those matters for themselves.

filibuster: “a politically delaying tactic such as a long irrelevant speech or several such speeches used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of some undesired legislation”

Since when is stopping a pirate like attempt to prevent voting, counted as squashing the other party. The main problem with this ordeal is that the Senate is never even allowed to vote on the issue. These nominees at least deserve the right to get a yes or no vote. Knowing that voting no on every judicial nominee would look bad, they filibuster to prevent the vote from ever happening. The heart of the matter is should a minority be allowed to overrule a majority?

This isn't a one sided problem. The Republicans did the same thing when President Clinton was nominating judges. If they change the rules then you have to remember that it might not be your party that has the majority after the next election.