Reply #25: You have failed to research this matter and are 100% dead wrong. Let me prove it to you ....

[Better Believe It]

Once again, the Senate leadership can at any time change Senate rules on debates, including those relating to filibusters.

What facts are you disputing or challenging in the following public information regarding the so-called "nuclear option" to stop filibusters?

So far not a single DU'ers has challenged or questioned with hard facts the ability of the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate to use the "nuclear option".

Can you do so with more than empty rhetoric?

I'm listening.

The Senate can use the so-called "nuclear option" in which the Senate simply and easily changes Senate rules so that only 51 votes would be required to approve Hilda Solis or any other Obama appointments and legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act. proh

So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators in 2005 and which some DLC'ers are afraid Democrats might use to stop Republican filibusters?

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option