A Possible Tactic For Stopping The Republican Nuclear Option Express

[GR]

The big reason the republicans give for NEEDING to use the nuclear option is rampant "judicial activism." Given that that's their cover story, it occurred to me that dems could trump this rhetorical winning hand by proposing alternate judicial nominees acceptible to BOTH repubs and dems while at the same time challenging republicans to withdraw support for the controversial judges replacing them with those compromise nominees who would be acceptible to at least 60 if not more senators and thus avoid the necessity of resorting to the nuclear option. Of course Bush nominated and renominated the controversial 7, but if republicans in the Senate move their support to a bipartisan compromise, those nominees cannot win anyway.

I think this tactic would place the onus on republicans to explain why this idea wouldn't be acceptible, given their strong desire for judges who do not legislate from the bench and in the face of this dangerous anti-constitutional situation RE the use of the nuclear option. With a little work in determining which judges to put on such a list, and with verbal commitments to support them from both dems and republicans, dems could take the high ground for good on the issue.

Perhaps the dems could even pick republican, pro-life judges who have demonstrated a respect for stare decisis and not legislating from the bench, even though their own personal beliefs may be at odds with following established precedent.

I think this would be a strong defensive power move right now which would help cement public disapproval for the use of the nuclear option and box republicans in to either put up or shut up.

[WillowTree]

1. There is no constitutional provision...

....that gives Congress authority over any part of the process of appointing federal judges. That power is specifically granted to the Executive branch. The Senate only has the power to approve or disapprove of the president's choices. What you're suggesting, in effect, is that the Senate would be able to "pre-select" who they would approve. In that case, why involve the president, whoever the president might be at a given point in time, in the process at all?

[GR]

4. Well Of Course If They Were Not Judicial Activists....Bush Would

have to approve them or risk being seen as petty. Technically you're right, but during Clinton's time republicans met with dems to come up with a list of options and let Clinton chose from them. Of course the president would have to nominate from the list but if he is only interested in appointing non-judicial activists, how could he possibly refuse, except for pettiness.

Why wouldn't he want to avoid a confrontation. Of course he really wants a confrontation but this would "call him out" so to speak.

[WillowTree]

6. He could refuse, and Clinton *should* have refused...

....because it weakens the presidency and violates the balance of powers between the branches as set-out in the constitution. It might have kept a bit of peace, but that wasn't one of Clinton's better moves.

[Yupster]

8. Agree Willow

Congress nominating judges would truly be Unconstitutional.

I heard a compromise idea about congress having a pool of already vetted nominees that would be given a fast-track to confirmation and my thought was what a bunch of blatant crap.

Nominating udges is not the role of congress. For them to try to take over that role would truly be unconstitutional.

It is the President's job to nominate judges.

If the senate doesn't like them, it can vote o.

[Jane Austin]

2. I think you've ID'ed the main problem.

Bush nominates radical right-wingers instead of mainstream judges that are acceptable to most Americans.

I honestly don't believe that most Americans are afraid of conservatives being on the court.

It's the extremists he nominates that are the problem.

I wish the media would focus on that occasionally.

[Yupster]

9. The way it's supposed to work

is that if a radical judge is nominated, the senators vote no.

If a senator votes yes, then he/she is defeated in the next election.

The minority doesn't get to define who's a "radical" judge though. The voters do.

[Jose Diablo]

3. Maybe the Republicans should try the nuclear option

and the Dem's sit back and watch, let them do it.

Here is the deal as I see it. The reason to bust the filibuster is not so much these normal judicial nominees. It's the political prize Bu$h needs to reward to his 'religious right' supporters. The overturning of Roe vs Wade. I doubt that most of Republican politico's really expect the Roe vs Wade to happen, they use as a tool to beat the Dems in elections. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, it won't be just us Dem's upset.

A return to pre-Roe vs Wade will be a disaster to the Republican party. They use abortion as a tool to get voters that economically are not republican. When Roe vs Wade is overturned there will be many moderate republicans that will see how damaging these fanatics really are. I think many 'religious' will have their eyes opened also as to how things really were as their daughters get their uterus's punctured with a coat hanger by some med student in a motel room.

There were some very good reasons for Roe vs Wade.

And after the filibuster is gone, well that works in both directions. Come a majority of Dems, it will be payback, and the people will want revenge at that point in time. Truth is, if the Dems hadn't been so civilized these last 40 years, the Republican party would be dead now. It would have died with Nixon.

I am not concerned, although many will think it's the end of the world, it won't be. It will be the beginning of the end for the Republicans. Go ahead and fight the end of the filibuster, we win either way.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. There is NO tatic to stop them

There's nothing we can do to stop them

Reason won't work

Votes won't work when you don't have enough

Public opion won't work cuz we can affect it

We're flat outta options, folks.

[housewolf]

7. What really has to happen

is that the administration needs to consult with both the majority and the minority in the senate and find acceptable nominees. It's just not right to "pack" courts with extremists from either side of the political spectrum.

[Yupster]

10. Constitutionally, that's not right

The president may nominate anyone he wishes.

The senate votes yes or no.

The senate has no role in choosing nominees for confirmation.

[GR]

11. How Do You Give Advice If You Have No Role...

Answer...you can't...If the president was really interested in judges who wouldn't legislate from the bench, it would be a simple matter to find them and get them approved by dems and repubs.

In reality, he does want judges to legislate from the bench but in favor of some of his pet issues...or at least the pet issues of some of his supporters...

[housewolf]

12. Of course constitutionally the preseident has the right to nominate anyone

he wants.

Actually, the way I see it is that the president's nomination amounts to a _suggestion_ and the senate's constitutional responsibility is to decide.

However, there is nothing in the constitution that DISALLOWS the senate and the execute to consult about nominees prior to the president making the nomination. In fact, such consultation was often done between the Clinton administration and the Republican-led Judiciary Committee. It's what allowed Clinton's supreme court nominations to go through withh a big fight.

(Yes, I know those same repubs held up 60-some Clinton nominations that were made in the last part of his administration, held up so that they could fill them when Bush took over).

I just think it would be better for the country if the executive worked with the legislative branch and treated it as a co-equal branch of government, if they had a common goal of getting judicial vacancies filled rather than this nonsense of making the issue of judicial nominations into a giant power play.