Talk:Nuclear option

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 ( all to June 27, 2005):
• Archive 2 (next to start):

please sign your posts with ~~~~

Contents 1 138.162.0.46 2 Tempshill 3 209.247.222.102 4 Richard A. Griffin & David W. McKeague -- fillibustered? 5 Article needs cleanup 6 Daphne's edit 7 constitutional option against democrat(communist) party 8 Constitutionality 9 Hi, this page needs a lot of work. 9.1 Re: Weasel Words 10 "In 1995, Democrats held the White House and a majority of the Senate" 11 3/5ths Majority 12 Cloture Majority? 13 Split Article? 14 POV items 15 Post entitled "POV Items" 16 Robert Byrd and the Nuclear Option

[edit] 138.162.0.46

This diff shows blatant use of Weasel word phrase "most believed".

"As Reid cited no specific law that would be violated, most believed he was just acting as a partisan activist rather than legal scholar."

Without a citation to support "most believed" the view that Reid was a "partisan activist", this also qualifies as violating No original research, since the view can be considered to be invented by the editor, as well as violating Neutral point of view.

Furthermore this diff shows a massive POV rewrite of article, yet the explanation simply says something about a quote from "Robertson". FuelWagon 22:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tempshill

This diff shows a POV edit, including the addition of this new paragraph.

The Senate has many ways to frustrate a Presidential appointment other than the filibuster; there is no Constitutional or legal requirement for the Senate to actually hold an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. A group of Senators may tie up the vote in the Judiciary Committee indefinitely by various means, or actually vote it down; the vote can be tabled or otherwise delayed on the floor; holds can be obtained; and a filibuster can be conducted, among other tactics.

The word "frustrate" is an extremely POV way to represent the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent with the president. Also, in another paragraph, you changed a sentence to read:

Thus the GOP will eventually need tools like the filibuster to block the appointment of an extremist judge for the Democratic party.

This is a POV edit to say "eventually", since it assumes that democrats must 'eventually' appoint an extremist judge. FuelWagon 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 209.247.222.102

This sentence added by you:

Conversely, many Democrats and Republicans view McCains effort as an attempt to block support for Frist anticipating McCain will run in the 2008 GOP primaries also.

Needs a source to support it. Otherwise the accusation that McCain brokered a deal specifically to torpedo Frist's run for president in 2008 so that McCain could run for president (and that he did it for no other reason than that) is an extreme point of view without foundation. Also, the quantifier "many" seems questionable. FuelWagon 17:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard A. Griffin & David W. McKeague -- fillibustered?

The following was added recently (not by me) to the list of nominees who were confirmed after the fillibuster compromise was reached, but was reverted:

Richard A. Griffin was confirmed 95-0, and David W. McKeague was confirmed 96-0.

I'm not sure the circumstances, but I do believe they were somehow held up because of the fillibuster threat, although, as the votes would seem to indicate, there wasn't too much opposition. Anyone know the details behind their cases, and should they be included in the article? Geoff.green 00:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The democrats were blocking Brown and Owen. It was a call for cloture on one of these two by Frist that triggered the showdown on the nuclear option. This then pushed McCain and the gang of 14 to come to their compromise. This compromise allowed the nominees being filibustered to be confirmed. Griffin and McKeague had nothing to do with it. And it isn't a question of Democrats blocking all nominees by Bush, it's a matter of them blocking the extremists. FuelWagon 00:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

So I assume it was that Griffin & McKeague weren't being blocked, but that Frist had decided to push Brown et al. ahead of them to bring the fillibuster threat to a head? That's what seems logical to me at least. Geoff.green 01:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Frist focused on the most controversial nominees first. If he had focused on one of Bush's uncontroversial nominee, then Democrats would have simply confirmed the uncontroversial one. And claims of "Senate Obstructionism" would be blown out of the water. That's why they couldn't accept Reid's offer to confirm one of Bush's nominees as a sign of good faith. They demanded "all or nothing" as an attempt to push blame back on Democrats. So when Frist pushed for the nomination of Owens, he knew the Democrats would filibuster, and once that happened, he would have political justification to pull the nuclear option trigger to break the filibuster. FuelWagon 00:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs cleanup

I added the cleanup flag. I don't have the time to go through it, but there are some redundancies and overall the article looks ugly. Someone should spend some time and tidy things up. TheSolomon 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's like someone wrote a chronological article and someone else wrote an article organized by topic and someone else smashed the two together and some of it just doesn't make any sense. For example, how encyclopedic is this?

On the Princeton University campus, outside the Frist Campus Center (named for Senator Bill Frist's family) students staged a protest against the nuclear option by "filibustering" for two weeks non-stop, beginning on April 26, 2005. Other protests took place at Carleton College, Yale University, Harvard University, Stanford University and Iowa State University. Students at the University of South Carolina organized a counterprotest "point of order" in support of ending judicial filibusters on May 20, 2005. patsw 22:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And also the code word "nuclear option" should be revised out of the text wherever possible. I'd like to see it replaced with "allowing filibusters" or "not allowing filibusters" or "limiting filibusters" - whatever the case may be.

I don't like having the article itself using the political code word. Because it makes it sound like Wikipedia is agreeing with the concept that stopping a filibuster is as harmful as dropping a nuclear bomb. That is actually the POV of one of the political parties, isn't it? Uncle Ed 20:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "nuclear option" was invented by Republicans. It's what it was called until they realized it sounded "scary" and picked something anodyne like "the constitutional option". It would be revisionist of Wikipedia to pretend that the term never existed.

Speaking of cleanup, the use of capitalization for official titles on this page is atrociously un-uniform. Would someone be willing to help me apply this rule from the wikipedia: manual of style: "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan". Similarly "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Likewise, royal titles should be capitalized: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness". (Reference: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed., par. 7.16; The Guardian Manual of Style, "Titles" keyword.) Exceptions may apply for specific offices." ? --Schlemazl 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daphne's edit

I'm working on integrating Daphne's edits to the intro. The wording and structure now seems dated, so let's see if we can improve it.--ghost 15:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] constitutional option against democrat(communist) party

That's from the first paragraph (as of 01-12-2006, 10pm GMT-8). What on earth? Shouldn't that say "nuclear option"? --Robert 06:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutionality

This article is terribly POV. There isn't even a mention of "legislative entrenchment" and the fact that it is nearly universally considered to be unconstitutional.--70.219.15.40

I understand your concern. I take it your issue with POV is over tone, not fact(s), correct? If there are erronious facts, please help us to correct them, or discuss with us what you feel is incorrect. If you have concerns over tone, please help us understand where you feel the tone creates bias. Could you give us quotes and references on "Legislative entrenchment"? Thanks for your concern.--ghost 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, this page needs a lot of work.

LOL - I'm way in over my head cleaning it up but detonating the nuclear option has nothing to do with filibusters. The nuclear option is nuclear because it changes how the Senate changes rules. Now the rules they change with it could be related to filibusters, could be related to any number of things. But nothing about the nuclear option relates directly to filibusters. The two thirds vote required to change Senate rules protected the Senate from being severely buffeted in partisan winds and made bi-partisan work mandatory - nothing could be accomplished without it. But with a simple majority necessary to change rules, one party could very effectively make it impossible for the other party to impact the legislative agenda. The founding fathers designed the system to prevent that very thing from happening. That's why the nuclear option is nuclear - it shatters the template put in place by our founding fathers and substitutes simply partisan intemperance for enforced deliberation. The Democrats may have been the party to oppose it, but it was the Republicans that dubbed it "nuclear" and they did so for a very good reason.

Very few in the media understood or took the time to define what the nuclear option actually was , but it is imperative, of course, that we be very clear here. The discussion of the filibuster rule change should be a small mention on that page and most likely requires a page of its own, or perhaps extended discussion on the page about filibusters.

Now, I have to figure out how to sign my name.

Daphne DeHaviland 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This rule change has been considered to a lesser or greater degree since the beginning of the century. And it has everything to do with filibusters. In fact, the two-thirds vote has been watered down on most issues over time, including the filibuster. Finally, the recent debate over the rule change that was referred to as the "Nuclear option" was aimed only at filibusters of judicial candidates. Although I agree that the media did a fair-poor job of reporting the events and their significance, this focus was voiced by Senators precisely because they feared weakening the Senate's filibuster rule more than that.

I appreciate your enthusiasm. And I agree that any Wikipedia article might need work. However, until we refute the evidence offered in the links and references, we should resist a major rewrite of the type you describe.--ghost 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The nuclear option is a method to change rules - not a method to end filibusters. By including lots of information about filibusters, you confuse the reader. Yes, of course, Republican proposed invoking it to change the rules regarding filibusters, but it can be used equally to change any rule. I'll see what kind of references I can find. I do know that one person observed that it would reduce the Senate to a game of "Calvin Ball" once unleashed. LOL

Daphne DeHaviland 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The GOP position is that the nuclear option can only be applied to constitutional issues, notably advise and consent motions. Rjensen 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(indented for clarity-ghost) Do we have bi-partisan consensus on that? If not, perhaps it belongs in the third paragraph. Daphne DeHaviland 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rjensen, can you please get us a reference on that? I'm curious if they're talking about constitutional advise and consent motions or filibusters on such motions. I think it would help Daphne and me.--ghost 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding, from statements from GOP Senators, that the "nuclear option" pertained to rules changes surrounding filibusters of judicial canidates only. Not Senate rules in general, as your wording implies. Most Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority. Thus the extensive filibuster references, and the background as to why this change was deemed necessary by some Senators and not others. To remove the filibuster references entirely would be to remove the context the reader needs to understand the issue, and create a POV fork--ghost 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Frist repeatedly calls it a "constitutional option" because of the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution. He seems to me to be saying the Constitution requires a vote on all 'advise & consent' nominees (which indeed is much broader than just judicial nominees). See http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=1878&Month=3&Year=2005 Rjensen 10:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Any editors interpretation of someone's use of a word or phrase is the POV of the editor. Therefore, it does not belong here. In order to address the concerns of those who use the minority-usage of "Constitutional option" instead of "Nuclear option", there is a redirect in place for Constitutional option. This is intended to point the reader to the majority-usage of the phrase, without jamming anything down someone's throat.--ghost 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Weasel Words

A recent edit by Rjensen attributed the fears over the Nuclear option to a particular political party. In order to support such a change, we'd need referencing and/or a quote. Especially since the article refutes this point.--ghost 14:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

try the debate between two senators at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-25.html

Rjensen 10:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

With due respect for the effort, the article clear points out that the origin of the term "Nuclear option" is bipartisan. The link provided (thank you) is unfortunately insufficient because the interview (and debate in the interview over the term) occured after the effort of party leaders to define usage along partisan lines.--ghost 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "In 1995, Democrats held the White House and a majority of the Senate"

This sentence is inaccurate. In 1995, the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. -- 69.19.2.36 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, thx. Good catch. Feel free to fix it yourself, if you like.--ghost 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3/5ths Majority

I moved the following here from the end of the first paragraph of this section:

Republicans retort that they have been winning the elections and in a democracy the winners rule, not the minority, and that the Constitution has several supermajorities (such as 2/3 needed to ratify a treaty), and that the Founders did not put in a 3/5 or any supermajority for confirmations. That is the Republicans claim that the Constitution has always assumed a majority vote for confirmations, and that "advise and consent" is a positive mandate for holding a vote.

This needs thourgh referencing to support these statements.--ghost 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I put it back. look at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html

for evidence. Rjensen 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cloture Majority?

The current article implies cloture needs a 2/3 majority to pass in the US Senate. This is not true, a 3/5 majority (60 votes) is needed to pass cloture in the Senate. 153.104.16.114 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

60 votes are needed to end debate for most business; however, changing the rules requires a 2/3 majority. "if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting" (from Rule XXII) http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php --66.213.222.170 06:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article?

There are two distinct issues in this article: the "nuclear option," which is a parliamentary tactic for changing Senate rules by simple majority vote and which has been employed in the past, and the judicial nominations crisis, which is a political event that might lead to the Republicans using the nuclear option. There should be one article on the "nuclear option" as parliamentary procedure, overviewing its history, and a second article on the "Judicial Nominations Crisis," encompassing most of the material in this article, but better written and balanced (less POV) if possible. --Komandorskiye 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV items

Heading: Historical Backdrop

Characterizing the Abe Fortas issue as a filibuster as a matter of fact is POV because it involves creatively redefining the term filibuster. By definition, a filibuster is a dilatory tactic to thwart the will of the majority. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/filibuster This necessarily requires that a majority exists in the first place. There was one cloture vote on the Fortas nomination, which did not produce 51 votes in favor of cloture. If the Johnson administration felt that it could have produced 51 votes by calling in the whole senate, it might have done so. However, the point is moot because Fortas withdrew after this vote. Whether this qualifies as a filibuster is a matter that is debatable, at the very least. For sure, the matter has been debated in the media. Thus to characterize this as a filibuster in fact is POV. It would be more fair to say that it has been characterized by some as a filibuster, and name those who so state.

By contrast, the filibusters of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor are all clearly filibusters because they all had more than 51 votes in favor of cloture.

Heading: Lines are Drawn

Stating as fact that Trent Lott coined the term "nuclear option" is POV because it is debated, and should be reported as such, rather than as undisputed fact, as is now the case. The authority cited in support of Lott coining the term, "The Clarion-Ledger" of Mississippi, does not attribute the term to Lott, but only quotes Lott as using the term. Furthermore, the cited article, dated May 23, 2003, and presumably quoting Lott no more than 48 hours thence, is predated by at least two other articles using the term: Reuters, Fri May 09, 2003 03:21 PM ET, "Frist Proposes Rule Change on Stalled Nominees," Thomas Ferraro, http://www.warblogging.com/warfarking/mirror/1052539176.html ; and National Review, May 15, 2003, 10:25 a.m., "Nuclear Option, No. Nuclear Response, Yes." Byron York, http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york051503.asp The fact that on-topic articles using the term "nuclear option" in their headline appear weeks prior to the cited article that quotes Lott as merely using the term, where none of said articles attribute the term to Lott, casts grave doubt on any assertion that Lott coined the term. Thus, clearly, no persuasive evidence has yet been cited attributing the term "nuclear option" to Lott here. Absent any clear establishment that Lott coined the term, such should not be stated in the article.

The POV aspect here is that it serves the purposes of one side of the argument to attribute the phrase to the other, since the term is perceived to carry negative connotations, which each side would rather attribute to the other, much like the proverbial hot potato.

Heading: Three-Fifths Majority

The second sentence of the second paragraph states: "In all other matters, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to make its own rules." Citing Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. This statement is POV because it presumes to state as fact what is actually a matter of unresolved constitutional interpretation. The current status quo is that in all other matters the Senate may make its own rules. However, to attribute that status quo to the constitution is well over the line. In other words, the article states as fact what is actually one side of an unresolved argument. The other side of the argument is that a reading of the second paragraph Article II, Section 2 requires that presidential nominees be given an up or down vote by the Senate. This latter side of the argument is the "Constitutional" essence of the "Constitutional option" in the first place. In terms of status quo, the Senate observes its own rules. The question as to what the Constitution has to say about the issue is the essence of the entire debate over the "Constitutional Option." Both sides should be fairly presented. Furthermore, absent a clear interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear error to state as fact what is actually a matter of as-yet uninterpreted constitutional law. See same article: Heading: A Simple Majority

Heading: A Change to Senate Rules

The last sentence of the first paragraph states: "The nuclear option is 'nuclear' because it allows a simple majority of senators (51) to circumvent these rules, end debate, and force a final vote on the filibustered business." This is POV because of it's characterization of "circumventing" Senate rules. The argument behind the constitutional option, eradicated in the article as shown above, is that the Constitution requires an "up or down vote" for presidential appointments. It is indisputable that the Constitution trumps Senate rules, and therefore, the term "circumvent" is POV. The only question here is the proper interpretation of the Constitution. That question should be left as a question, since it still is a question in fact.

Furthermore, the statement is incorrect. The constitutional option is "termed the 'nuclear option,' because it threatens to engulf Washington in partisan warfare and stop virtually all business in the Senate." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/22/JUDGES.TMP&type=printable

[edit] Post entitled "POV Items"

This post was intended show as posted by me.

[edit] Robert Byrd and the Nuclear Option

With respect to 24.218.45.117, the parliamentary procedure used by Byrd and that contemplated by the Republicans is identical. The difference is that Byrd used the nuclear option to end dilatory tactics that were not filibusters in the present sense, whereas the Republicans intend to use it against filibusters of judicial nominees. (Although Byrd did threaten to use the nuclear option in the early 70's against a filibuster, and this threat was instrumental in the Senate agreeing to lower the cloture threshold to 3/5 from 2/3). One can make the argument that the threatened Republican use is more disruptive, so the difference in target probably does need to be acknowledged. But the procedural maneuver is the same, and I have amended the article text accordingly --Komandorskiye 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)