[North-NV-Greens] Fwd: Molly Ivins on "The Nuclear Option."

[Paul Etxeberri]

>
>
>The nuclear option and judicial activists
>by Molly Ivins  April 26, 2005
>
>http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1114
>
>AUSTIN, Texas -- I was all set to write a column about
>the nuclear option -- the proposal to change the rules
>of the Senate in order to get President Bush's most
>questionable judicial appointments through -- when, lo,
>word came that there is no nuclear option anymore. It
>is now called "the constitutional option."
>
>Who changed it? Why, the Republican Party, of course.
>Having found that "nuclear option" does not poll well,
>the Republicans simply decreed the rules change can no
>longer be described by that name. Further, the
>Republican Party sent media operatives around to major
>news organizations to inform them that anyone who fails
>to obey the new diktat on usage will be demonstrating
>the dread "liberal bias."
>
>Since this particularly fateful rules change was first
>christened "the nuclear option" by Sen. Trent Lott of
>Mississippi in 2003, and has been called "the nuclear
>option" ever since -- by Republicans, along with
>everybody else -- I have to say this is a distinctly
>Orwellian development.
>
>In fact, given the implicit threat that the Republican
>Party faithful will be encouraged to denounce all news
>outlets that do not conform to this new political
>correctness, I'd say it is not only ridiculous but also
>dangerous, quite a feat.
>
>I shall, of course, continue to refer to the proposed
>change as the nuclear option out of a sense of
>obligation to freedom of speech. I would be shocked if
>anyone in the media did otherwise.
>
>Now, back to substance. Americans are notoriously bored
>by governmental process. If you want to lose readers,
>just start a story with, "House Bill 787 was passed out
>of subcommittee by a unanimous vote on Tuesday." So,
>convincing folks that changing Senate Rule 22 is a
>danger to the republic is a challenge. But this really
>is about protecting the rights of the minority in the
>Senate, the right of every senator to filibuster.
>
>In the old movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the
>key scene is Jimmy Stewart's filibuster on behalf of
>the people, which triumphantly wins over his fellow
>senators. Under the changed rule, Mr. Smith would have
>to keep his mouth shut.
>
>Actually, no one filibusters anymore. The last
>filibuster against a judicial nominee was in 1968, when
>the Republicans successfully filibustered for four days
>to stop Abe Fortas from becoming chief justice of the
>Supreme Court. If there's a serious threat of
>filibuster, the leaders broker a deal.
>
>But the Democrats are threatening to filibuster the
>same Bush judicial nominees they busted in his first
>term, leaving the poor man with only a 95 percent
>approval rate for his nominees. Bush promptly
>renominated seven of these 10 dog judges (including
>Texas' own Priscilla Owen), and now the Republicans are
>prepared to change the rules so they can be cleared by
>a simple majority, rather than winning the 60 votes
>needed to stop a filibuster.
>
>Since what goes around comes around, some Republican
>senators are deeply troubled about the prospect of
>being in the minority themselves someday without the
>right to filibuster. Further, in order to change Rule
>22, the Senate also has to change the rules on how to
>change the rules. At present, a two-thirds vote, 67, is
>required to change the rules, but under a procedural
>ploy, this will be brought up "out of order," so it
>requires only 51 votes.
>
>Look, this is a system of government based on
>protecting the rights of the minority. It is also based
>on the premise that there are three separate branches
>of government, each of which forms a check and a
>balance on the others. It was carefully designed to
>prevent the dictatorship of the majority.
>
>That is why the Founders assigned the Senate, not the
>House, to advise and consent on federal nominations.
>Sen. Robert Byrd, the resident scholar of all things
>senatorial, notes that while Rule 22 is only 86 years
>old, the tactic itself has been used since the first
>Congress. (Hearing Byrd hold forth on such matters is
>pure pleasure -- whether you agree with him or not, he
>is a magnificent speaker of the old school and a sad
>reminder how debased most political speech is today.)
>
>How God got involved in all this is a bit of a mystery.
>Some Christian Dominionists decided the Almighty is in
>favor of changing Rule 22. Led by James Dobson, who
>runs Focus on the Family, they decided 22 is "a
>filibuster against the faithful," implying and in some
>cases stating that anyone who opposes them is
>anti-Christian and probably working for Satan.
>
>Last time I checked, no one had elected Dobson to
>decide who is a Christian and who is not. It's a joke
>that the right wing claims it is against "judicial
>activists." What they want are judicial activists who
>agree with them. These people don't want to govern,
>they want to rule.
>
>(For an excellent sense of how the Christian
>Dominionists think, I highly recommend the two lead
>articles in the May issue of Harper's magazine.)
>
>To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by
>other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit
>the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
>COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
>discussion and debate service of the Committees of
>Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
>provide varied material of interest to people on the
>left.
>
>For answers to frequently asked questions:
><http://www.portside.org/faq>
>
>To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
><http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>
>To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
><moderator at portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>
>For assistance with your account:
><support at portside.org>
>
>To search the portside archive:
><http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand