What, exactly, is the "Nuclear Option?"

[Demoiselle]

(The anti-fillibuster move.) I'm all for it, if it gets us a healthy Public Option.
But I have no idea how it works..
Anybody?

[dhpgetsit]

1. In recent history it requires 60 votes to break a filibuster.

The "nuclear option" as it was called when the Rs had the majority would lower this hurdle.

[Nite Owl]

2. It's eliminating the need for the

Senate rule requiring 60 votes instead of a simple majority of 50+1. It sounds real good but it works both ways. Things could have been even worse when the repukes were in power under Bush. They threatened to do it then because the dems kept many of their judges from passing through.

[ixion]

3. It was a BS ploy when the Rethugs wanted to use it against the Dems

I don't see why it would be any different now. It is, in fact, disturbing to hear someone recommend it.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Back when the Republicans had control of the Senate and Democrats...

threatened filibusters, the Republican Senate majority leader threatened to pass a resolution on Senate rules and remove the right to filibuster. That meant that everything would pass on a straight majority vote.

We Democrats/Liberals/Progressives came unhinged. What the Republicans threatened to do was tantamount to tyranny. No telling what terrible bills they would force down the deep Throats of Democrats/Liberals/Progressives. This led Democrats/Liberals/Progressives to be careful with filibusters. Removing the fillibuster rule was called the nuclear option.

Now, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives are for the nuclear option. I still oppose removing the filibuster rule. Part of the Senate's purpose is to see that the tyranny of the majority is not allow to run roughshod over the minority.

Now, I would like to see them go back to the original rules for a filibuster. Everybody had to be present. The person holding the filibuster needed to talk constantly until a 2/3rd majority of the Senators got tired of hearing him speak. If he went on long enough, successful filibusters forced the Senate to move on to different legislation.

Modern rules don't make sense. That is because the actual times the entire Senate is there are very rare indeed. They only show up for votes. When you see some Senator speaking on CSPAN, chances are he is speaking to an empty room.

Damn sill way of running a government if you ask me.

[ixion]

5. "running the government" is just a front for what they do, which is

to cultivate their careers, for the most part.


Sure, there are some true civil servants, but they are few and far between.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Along with furthering their careers, they do run the government.

That is what they do.

I don't like the current way that the filibuster is used.

[ixion]

8. If by 'running' you mean

making sure the average tax-payer will see almost nothing for his or her money, then you may be right. :)

[damntexdem]

10. Yes, part of the Senate's role is to thwart democracy.

The hypocrisy of the past GOP threat of the nuclear option was to threaten to eliminate what the right had so often used to stop progressive reforms. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the filibuster is a B.S., antidemocratic ploy that should be eliminated.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. The purpose of the Senate is to protect minorities from the majority.

Goes back to the founding fathers. The filibuster is a rule that fits the Constitutional purpose of the Senate. It is short sighted to think that removing this rule will serve the people. We loved it when Republicans were in charge. When Conservatives come back in power in 6 or 8 or 12 years, we will want it again.

[Demoiselle]

6. I know that it kills a fillibuster...I was asking, exactly HOW?

And although I sympathize with the notion that we wouldn't want the Repukes to do it to us....Isn't this idea of having to have
an enormous SuperMajority just a ploy to preserve ALL of the status quo?
("Gosh we just can't do anything because we don't have 60 votes!!")
Since when did "Mutually Assured Destruction" become a commonplace legislative ploy in a Democracy?
I'm afraid if the Dems don't use anything they can use to push real health care reform, we will lose that majority, and then some.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. The rules for filibuster are not in the Constitution, they are in the by laws...

of the Senate. I believe all they would have to do is to have the rules committee put forth a resolution to change the rule to disallow filibuster and then pass it with a simply majority.

But once the filibuster is gone, it is gone. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Since no party will hold onto the Senate forever, when it changes, the opposition will have that power.

[tritsofme]

12. The nuclear option imagined in 2005 by Bill Frist only pertained

to the filibuster of judicial nominees.

Wikipedia has a pretty good rundown on the mechanics of pulling the "nuclear trigger":

"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#Changes_to_Senate_rules

[excess_3]

13. do we have 50 Senate votes for single payer? ,nt