A Primer On Filibusters

By Steve Chaggaris of the CBS News Political Unit

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.
The Politics
Both liberal and conservative interest groups have been fired up on this issue, none more so than conservative evangelical Christian groups, which have not only attacked Democrats but have very publicly put pressure on undecided Republicans who they deem "weak" and "squishy."

Groups such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council have gone so far as to say that GOP senators like Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John McCain of Arizona owe them and President Bush for helping in their re-election efforts last year.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins says his group is paying close attention and will make sure the undecideds are held accountable if they don't play ball with Frist.

The Bigger Picture
Some feel that this discussion of eliminating filibusters on judicial nominees is just a setup for a larger fight: a potential Supreme Court vacancy.

A vacancy "is going to be the mother of all battles," Focus on the Family founder James Dobson predicted in March.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., voiced his suspicions Monday, saying he thinks "the White House wants to force the nuclear option on the Senate because it wants to clear the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes instead of one who needs 60 votes."

But all this talk about changing Senate rules and the overheated debate over filibusters has even some conservatives calling for a time out.

Former federal judge Kenneth Starr, best known for his role as the independent counsel investigating President Clinton in the 1990s, told CBS News Correspondent Gloria Borger the fight has gone way too far.

Starr said those involved in the debate should "just reduce the heat, lower voices and be a little bit more reasoned in our discussion."

"I think that's what the American people want. They're sick and tired of 'Crossfire' politics when it comes to the judiciary."

By Steve Chaggaris