June 19, 2009 5:02 PM
- Text
A Primer On Filibusters
(CBS)
By Steve Chaggaris of the CBS News Political Unit
As the escalating Senate fight over the filibustering of a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees threatens to come to a head this week, some are wondering what all the fuss is about.
Basically the issue is this: Senate Democrats feel ten of the president's nominees for federal judgeships harbor "extremist" views, and they've used the filibuster to block floor votes on those nominees. What invoking the filibuster effectively does is raise the bar for confirming a nominee from 51 votes to 60 votes. That leaves Senate Republicans, who have a 55-45 majority, five votes short of passing a filibustered nominee.
While the filibuster has never been used in this way for lower court nominees (it was used once to block a nominee for Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1968), Democrats defend themselves by saying that this is one of the "checks and balances" spelled out in the Constitution.
Republicans charge the Democrats' actions are unprecedented and are not protected by the Constitution. Because of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is contemplating drastic action to force "up-or-down votes" on these nominees.
The "Nuclear Option"
"It is only fair that the Senate promptly consider judicial nominees on the floor, discuss and debate their qualifications, and then vote to confirm or not to confirm them," President Bush said in a statement Monday.
In order to force votes on the floor, Frist has threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option," which would change Senate rules to eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees. The nuclear option would not affect any other types of filibusters.
For Frist to get his way he would need at least 50 votes to force a rule change; Vice President Cheney could break a 50-50 tie in favor of the Republicans.
It's unclear whether Frist has the votes to do this, but it is clear that several Republicans either oppose the nuclear option or are on the fence. That's created a situation where both sides have increased the rhetoric in order to sway the undecided senators and public opinion.
As the escalating Senate fight over the filibustering of a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees threatens to come to a head this week, some are wondering what all the fuss is about.
Basically the issue is this: Senate Democrats feel ten of the president's nominees for federal judgeships harbor "extremist" views, and they've used the filibuster to block floor votes on those nominees. What invoking the filibuster effectively does is raise the bar for confirming a nominee from 51 votes to 60 votes. That leaves Senate Republicans, who have a 55-45 majority, five votes short of passing a filibustered nominee.
While the filibuster has never been used in this way for lower court nominees (it was used once to block a nominee for Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1968), Democrats defend themselves by saying that this is one of the "checks and balances" spelled out in the Constitution.
Republicans charge the Democrats' actions are unprecedented and are not protected by the Constitution. Because of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is contemplating drastic action to force "up-or-down votes" on these nominees.
The "Nuclear Option"
"It is only fair that the Senate promptly consider judicial nominees on the floor, discuss and debate their qualifications, and then vote to confirm or not to confirm them," President Bush said in a statement Monday.
In order to force votes on the floor, Frist has threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option," which would change Senate rules to eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees. The nuclear option would not affect any other types of filibusters.
For Frist to get his way he would need at least 50 votes to force a rule change; Vice President Cheney could break a 50-50 tie in favor of the Republicans.
It's unclear whether Frist has the votes to do this, but it is clear that several Republicans either oppose the nuclear option or are on the fence. That's created a situation where both sides have increased the rhetoric in order to sway the undecided senators and public opinion.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Popular Now in Politics
- CPAC: Will Sarah Palin spring a surprise?
- Timothy Dolan: Birth control tweak a "first step"
- CPAC: Santorum rips Romney, rouses conservatives
- Ann Coulter riles up the CPAC crowd
- After uproar, Obama tweaks birth control rule
- Santorum: Women could bring "emotions" to combat
- Romney takes on hecklers at Maine town hall
- Obama to announce revamp of birth control policy
- CPAC: Anti-Obama beats pro-Romney
- Mitt Romney wins Maine GOP caucuses
- Sarah Palin revs up CPAC faithful
- Occupy protestors kicked out of CPAC
- Santorum's big benefactor
- CPAC: Huckabee "thanks" Obama for birth control firestorm
- Romney says his conservatism will shine
- Report: Chicago cardinal joins contraceptives fight
- Romney on Obama: I will "knock him on his heels"
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Reactions to Whitney Houston's death
- Colaiacovo scores in OT to lift Blues over Avs 3-2
- Whitney Houston's voice will never be forgotten
- Turkmenistan votes in presidential election
on Facebook
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Occupy protestors kicked out of CPAC
- CPAC: Will Sarah Palin spring a surprise?
- Beyonce and Jay-Z post first photos of Blue Ivy Carter
on CBS News






