The "nuclear option," as used in American politics circa 2005, is a catchprase referring to a political manuever that would allow the Senate majority (currently Republicans) to prevent the minority party (currently Democrats) from filibustering judicial nominees . By U.S. Law, certain judicial appointees, particularly Supreme or other federal court Justices, must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before taking the bench. Under current Senate rules, a minority of senators are able to prevent the confirmation of judges via filibuster unless a supermajority can be reached to 'break' the filibuster. The 'nuclear option' refers to the technicality that only a simple majority is necessary to change this rule. That is, although a supermajority is currently necessary to break the filibuster, a simple majority could alter the Senate rules so that only a simple majority would be required to break the filibuster.

Possible consequencees

According to an editorial by Michael Crowley , "a senator always has the power to stand up and raise a procedural objection that requires a majority vote to dismiss... [Democrats] could start raising nonstop objections... Frist would have to keep 51 friendly senators near the Senate floor to accomplish anything." Crowley, however, is skeptical that Democrats will actually "shut down the government." According to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's spokesman Jim Manley , Democrats are unwilling to let government necessary functions fail by blocking their budgets as some National Parks did in 1995, so, Crowley concludes that Democrats would have few good "targets" for retaliation.[1]

An aide to a Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat offered an alternative strategy to shutting down the government: hijacking the agenda by proposing bills large numbers of their own. "It would be great to have eight to ten bills we could do over and over again and just sort of drill the Democratic agenda into the public's head... Every time they bring up a corporate relief bill, we'd bring up a minimum wage bill. Every time they bring up a bankruptcy bill, we'd bring up a health care bill. I think that's a better strategy than objecting every five seconds and adjourning every five seconds."

Controversy

Proponents call it a nuclear option because they see it as a last resort with possibly catastrophic consequences for both sides. There is no consensus among republicans over whether it would be strategic to employ it, with Robert Novak supporting it and National Review opposing it.[2] Fears that this action would cause, at the least, an obstinate opposition by Senate Democrats, and at worst a shut down of the entire legislative branch, were increased on March 15, 2005, when Senate Minority leader Harry Reid stated publicly that, were the Republicans to pursue this technique, the Democrats would be uncooperative on all future legislation, except national security and military issues.

Opposition

Opposition to the action includes the following

— Republicans employed the technique of filibustering judicial nominees under Clinton, thus any such move would be hypocritical.

— The nuclear option would cause the Senate to grind to a halt, compromising any future legislation.

Support

Proponents of the action maintain that the Senate's sole role regarding judicial nominees is to 'advise and consent'; a minority of Senators should not be allowed to overrule the consent of the majority. Proponents also argue that the filibuster technique here is not constitutionally grounded, and has never been used throughout American history to prevent the appointment of judges of the opposite political affiliation.

Case for by Republican Senator George Allen