The Republicans (well most of them) are threatening to change the rules of the Senate such that Judicial nominations cannot be filibustered. Therefore instead of needing 60 votes to end debate and allow a vote on the nominee, then the nominee can go right to a vote and pass with 51 votes.
But she was naked! And all... articulate!
Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
What Happens in Natter 35 Stays in Natter 35
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Gudanov - May 18, 2005 9:58:28 am PDT #5289 of 10001
Coding and Sleeping
Laura - May 18, 2005 9:59:00 am PDT #5290 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
Can someone explain this filibuster/nuclear option business to me in a way that I can understand?
If we lose the filibuster option then the party with 51 votes gets their way on every damn thing. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster, which gives a minority party a chance.
Allyson - May 18, 2005 10:00:58 am PDT #5291 of 10001
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
So their assumption is that they'll have the majority 4evah?
That's just silly.
tommyrot - May 18, 2005 10:01:43 am PDT #5292 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
If we lose the filibuster option then the party with 51 votes gets their way on every damn thing.
But the change will be limited to the confirmation of judges.
Supposedly.
At least, that's what they say. But it could be a slippery sloap to eliminating the filibuster for everything.
Gudanov - May 18, 2005 10:01:57 am PDT #5293 of 10001
Coding and Sleeping
What it comes down to is that there are 10 judical nominees that the Democrats are threatening to fillibuster (out of like 205), if the rules are changed these nominees will be approved.
However, this is oftened considered to be more about a future Supreme Court nominee than the current nominees.
Emily - May 18, 2005 10:02:57 am PDT #5294 of 10001
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola
Allyson, are you making up your own steps, in the defiance of all authority figures who say the Bogo Pogo's the only way to go? Sigh. Don't you know there are no new steps?
tommyrot - May 18, 2005 10:03:20 am PDT #5295 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
So their assumption is that they'll have the majority 4evah?
That's just silly.
Yeah. Although their plan is to have the majority 4evah. A lot of their proposed policies are supposedly geared towards crippling the Democrats in elections....
Topic!Cindy - May 18, 2005 10:04:29 am PDT #5296 of 10001
What is even happening?
At least, that's what they say. But it could be a slippery sloap to eliminating the filibuster for everything.
Which is what Senate Democrats (including my own Senators) tried to do, back in 96, or so.
Gudanov - May 18, 2005 10:04:36 am PDT #5297 of 10001
Coding and Sleeping
So their assumption is that they'll have the majority 4evah?
I think it's being done for immediate political gain. The republican leader in the Senate (Bill Frist) is wanting to mount a presidential run in '08 and is under a lot of pressure from the religious right to make this move.
Laura - May 18, 2005 10:04:50 am PDT #5298 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
What it comes down to is that there are 10 judical nominees that the Democrats are threatening to fillibuster
Of course they blocked like 60 of Clinton's. Yes, this is very shortsighted since I fully expect the Republicans to lose their power position. (And don't dare disagree with me)