Nuclear option considerations

Will we see a nuclear option soon? Seems like things aren't falling into place like the admin would like them to.  Even though the Judiciary Committee sent Patricia Owens and Janice Rogers Brown back to the full Senate yesterday, the leaking of a bad poll isn't a good sign:

These officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a recent survey taken for Senate Republicans showed 37 percent support for the GOP plan to deny Democrats the ability to filibuster judicial nominees, while 51 percent oppose.

Meanwhile the Bolton fiasco doesn't show any sign of abating: Bush indicating his strong support of Bolton the day before it will be revealed in the Post that the professionally reasonable Colin Powell isn't a Bolton fan.  Suddenly Bush's nominees don't look quite so qualified after all. 

I don't know; they'll do it if they think they have the votes.  But it doesn't look good for them right now.

-- Michael

Comments

[dmeyers]

The "nuclear option" has already been played in the form of 20 filibusters on 10 judicial nominations. Given THE FACT that ZERO appellate court nominations were filibusterd in the 20th century (that is correct ZERO IN 100 YEARS) I think the 20 filibusters is THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

The Republicans are just returning the Senate to its tradition in voting UP or DOWN on judicial nominees.

Why is the left so afraid of voting? I got it, maybe in 2008 the Dems could filibuster the Presidential election and as long as they get 40% of the vote they can block another Republican from being President.

[Incertus]

None, you say, dmeyers? Sorry, try again.
In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez. [2]

Frist was directly confronted with this vote by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation (11/21/04). Schieffer said "Senator, a group called The American Progress Action Fund sent me a question to ask you. And here's what it says: 'Senator Frist, if you oppose the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations, why did you vote to filibuster Judge Richard Paez when President Clinton nominated him to the 9th Circuit?'" [3] Frist replied "Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing--as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate. But no to kill nominees."

But American Progress has obtained a document that proves Frist was not, as he suggested, voting to filibuster Paez for scheduling purposes or to get more information. He voted to filibuster Paez for the very reason he said was illegitimate – to block Paez's nomination indefinitely.

On March 9, 2000, Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) issued a press release describing the intent of the Paez filibuster vote the day before. The release says Senator Smith "built a coalition of several moderate and conservative Senators in an effort to block" Paez's nomination. [4] Frist was a part of that coalition. Smith did not organize the filibuster to get more information on Paez (after all his nomination had been pending for four years). He organized the filibuster because he had already decided Paez was "out of the mainstream of political thought and...should [not] be on the court"

Ready to back off yet?