How to stop the "nuclear option"

[election_2004]

Is anyone else worried about Right-Wing Obstructionism?

I am. That's why I'm writing to both of my U.S. Senators (Feingold and Kohl), who are fortunately both on the Judiciary Committee, about it.

As much as I'd like to believe that talk of stripping the Democrats' filibuster power is mainly rhetoric and political manuvering to try to scare the Democrats into compliance (and so Frist can earn brownie points with conservatives for his presidential run), I am very scared that they will actually go through with it.

In the history of this country, NO PARTY, while in the Senate minority, has ever been stripped of its right to filibuster. Such a blatantly arrogant power grab from the Senate GOP leadership would be a risky and dangerous political move for the Republican Majority - - not to mention a cultural/judicial disaster for the American people!

So here's the question: how can we stop it? Or better yet, how can we prevent a Right-Wing Fundamentalist Nutjob from replacing O'Connor or Stevens (*IF* either of them reire)? I'm not as concerned about who replaces Rehnquist, because replacing Rehnquist with another conservative won't really alter the overall composition of the Supreme Court that much. Also, I think it might end up being Janice Rogers Brown, who, while uberconservative, has a bit of a libertarian streak in her (which will hopefully grow if she's confirmed to SCOTUS).

When SCOTUS retirements come up, should the Democrats publicly call upon and challenge Bush (in clear, blatant talking points) to nominate a new Supreme Court nominee who is known for judicial moderation rather than practicing extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism?

Should the Democratic Minority reserve its filibuster power for only the most extreme circumstances (*COUGH!*...replacing O'Connor...*COUGH!*....replacing Stevens...)

If the Senate votes in favor of "the nuclear option," should the Democrats hold a mass walkout with a mass press conference (denouncing the Republican power grab) immediately afterward?

If O'Connor and/or Stevens and/or Ginsburg is replaced with someone who will cater to every whim of the Religious Right, then we're all fucked for generations to come. Is there NOTHING we can say or do to minimize the long-term damage?

Would Republicans tolerate being stripped of their filibuster power if THEY were still in the Senate Minority, and John Kerry was the one getting to appoint new Supreme Court nominees?

51% is NOT a mandate for Right-Wing Obstructionism!

[StClone]

1. Great Idea! Extend that to the Election Fraud

Will Republicans be Obstructionists to solving Voting Irregularities and/or a recount? Damn the Republican Obstructionists.

[Gothmog]

2. We need a couple of GOP senators to block

The nuclear option only works if the GOP gets 51 votes. Several GOP senators have indicated that they do not not want to go along with the option due to the long term impliations and consequences. If someone like McCain or Snow speaks out against the nuclear option, than it will likely fail. Otherwise, I am afraid that the GOP will be arrogant to attempt this change.

[ohioan]

3. There are several GOP senators who would be very unlikely to

go along with the nuclear option. I think that Frist, et al are just bluffing - unless something changes, they don't have the votes.

[Gothmog]

4. I hope that you are right.

Spector may have pledged to support the nuclear option to get the judiciary chairmanship.

[ohioan]

5. I think you're right about Specter

But they still have to deal with McCain, Snowe, Graham, Chafee and several others who have expressed serious reservations about the nuclear option. And that doesn't include those who, although they have not publicly stated their opposition, are sane enough to know that they won't always be in the majority and will need to have the filibuster available to them down the road.

[election_2004]

6. You can also add....

Voinovich to that list (I doubt he'll run again in 2010), along with Sununu and Coleman who will be up for reelection in 2008 in blue-leaning states.

Obviously, no one in the Democratic Caucus is going to support the nuclear option.

[election_2004]

7. More about the nuclear option, and Specter...

The following was written to me by a friend of mine (a self-identified Democrat), and his thoughts on the possibility of the GOP actually going through with the "nuclear option" - -

As for the Nuclear option, it may be an attempt to weaken the Dem's defense, but I can also see them going through with it. These guys play politics for keeps and they play hardball the likes of which has rarely been seen in American politics. I wouldn't put anything past them at this point and they are already laying the justification groundwork for it and there hasn't been a huge backlash except among a very few Dems. All the Republicans need to do is throw up a couple extremely unqualified candidates, watch the dems spend their energy on them and then cry 'obstructionism' at the top of their lungs. They don't even need it, but Bush would like things to be a lot easier ("things would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, of course I'd be dictator") and they think they have a lock on the congress for the near future which means they'd love to just be able to roll over all opposition. Amazingly the Democrats are STILL underestimating them I think, and that is perilous for all of us. The Republicans under Bush have pushed pretty far to the right, and with the whole "wartime President" thing have been able to cover a lot of their power-grabs without America knowing or caring.

I think you're partially right about Specter. I think he will play along for the first couple years, and he does owe Bush BIG time for his win this past year. The main thing will be does he want to run again in 2010. If he does he has to go along with the Republicans because they will control his re-winning the seat. However, he may be content to step back and run for governor in '06 or '10, even given Rendell's popularity. I think you're overestimating the fuss a Specter removal would cause though (unless the Bushies SERIOUSLY piss off the rest of the GOP moderates). Coleman is not as moderate as he plays himself to be (I really REALLY dislike him) and McCain is eyeing 08 himself, which means he may have to move to the right in order to make it through the primaries in the next few years. I think the moderate GOPers realise they might be in some serious trouble if the Dems try to go after them (because face it they're our best hope of recaliming the Senate, even if it makes politics more contentious and compromise less likely....but hey it's what they've been doing to us for the last 30 years). It's just as likely though that you may see a revolt on the Right lead by the likes of Coburn.

Back to judges though, I think Rhenquist gets replaced by a wingnut, and that the choice is then between Scalia and Thomas for Chief...and the Dems should oppose that with EVERYTHING they have. Whether or not Stevens or O'Connor live another four years is as much a question as will they step down. I think you're somewhat right in that they won't try and use another Scalia or Thomas type to fill the spot but they will try a Center-Right person who may keep Roe but will keep tilting the balance to the Right on the court. If Roe is overturned the GOP loses a LOT of it's support (mainly among Catholics). They will keep making noise, but in the end abortion advocates may become like the African-Americans are for Dems, vocal and suportive, but ultimately powerless.

[geniph]

8. My little fantasy...

is that the republicans will overstep themselves to the point that they drive some of the last vestiges of moderates in their lunatic-fringe party into the arms of the Democratic party, or at least into the Independent caucus with Jim Jeffords. We need Snowe, Chaffee, and some of the others to abandon the Talibush and join Jim Jeffords as the Caucus of Conscience.