Should Democrats use the nuclear option if Repukes filibuster rejection of Bush's judges?

[Guaranteed]

[davidinalameda]

1. I'm confused

if they don't pass the Judiciary Committee then there wouldn't be a need for a fillabuster, no?

I don't see the more conservative nominees even getting out of committee

[mmonk]

2. We can't afford to let anymore of their judges

take the bench.

[TankLV]

3. Give them exactly what they demanded of us.

Give them a taste of their own medicine.

You can bet your life they will do it the next time they steal their way back to power...

[Union Thug]

6. I agree. Give them what they gave us...

I don't understand the 'spirit of bipartisanship." I thought we were beyond that little fantasy world. One lesson that all dems should have learned is that politics is a street fight. There are no rules, and the only winner is the one left standing.

[Dr.Phool]

4. You can't filibuster rejection.

Only confirmation. If they're rejected, they're done.

[Eugene]

7. Mitch McConnell is threatining to block other legislation

if Repubs don't get up or down votes on Bush's judge picks.

Democrats warned not to block judges - AP

You be bipartisan and give us what we want or we'll shut the place down.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Republicans? Shutting the government down? Sounds like a GREAT idea!

Went over like fuckin' gangbusters, the last time they tried it.

Here's an idea, Mitch. How about, from now on, Bush sends down some judges who aren't to the right of Torquemada, some people who understand the Separation of Church and State instead of want to wage war on it-- folks who represent where the MAJORITY of the American People sit on issues like reproductive rights- namely, judges who are PRO CHOICE...

then... maybe we can talk.

Remember, Mitch, "elections have consequences".

Anyway, what kind of a dipshit threat is that? We all know that anything halfway decent the Democrats pass, will get Vetoed by Bush.

[Lasher]

5. Uh, what?

You filibuster to block legislation, not to pass it. The Republicans could filibuster to block a vote on a nominee, but the outcome would essentially be the same as a rejection by the Democratic majority in a full vote.

I like the idea of the nuclear option coming back to haunt Republicans, however.

[Guaranteed]

8. Well, yeah, I guess it would be a dumb strategy.

Dragging out confirmation so that it isn't denied...

Anyway. The larger question remains.

[Lasher]

9. Yep, good strategy and here's a good potential application

Republicans are already threatening to filibuster other legislation if we block their extremist judicial nominations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2748112

[AJ9000]

14. I tell you one thing if Dems don't block extreme judges now theres no hope. nm

[Ignacio Upton]

10. The Repubs lost two of their arguements for "up or down vote"

1. They argued in favor of judicial confirmations based on Bush's 2004 "mandate" and how these judges somehow represented majority rule. Now, we are the majority, and voters don't want conservative activist judges.

2. This debate is no longer about the filibuster. They argued that it was unprecented to filibuster judges as we were in the minority. Now we control the Senate and we can just kill judges in committee. The fact is that the Republicans could care less about the filibuster...they just use that as an excuse because they want their right-wing judges.

[Eugene]

11. Republicans will just have to (re)learn how to compromise.

With divided government, both parties will have to work together to get anything done.
Repubs will have bills of their own that they will need get passed. They will need
support from the Democratic majority. Democrats will need enough bipartisan support
to avoid or overcome presidential vetos.

McConnell is threating some old-fashioned hostage taking. Democratic majorities have
dealt with these tactics before without going nuclear.

[MiniMe]

12. The dems now control what bills and confirmations will come to the floor

Just as Frist and DeLay/Boner did. Thats why many bills that had bipartisan support never came up for a vote. But I believe it has to come out of committee first, the dems will hold a majority or have the same number of seats as the repubs on the committees. So many BS things will just die in committee.

[depakid]

15. But are Reid & the Dems willing to bottle things up in committee?

That remains to be seen.

My suspicion is that the far right enablers in the party will allow Republican legislation to come before the floor with "compromises (read: they'll sell us out) and Reid will be unable or unwilling to enforce any sort of discipline.

I hope I'm wrong.

[MiniMe]

17. We'll have to wait and see. We know what the head of homeland security will do

since its Lieberman. Some of the others it ain't gonna be so easy. I think the judges will have problems coming out of committee though, if they are really bad.

[aquart]

16. This is Leahy's committee, right?

""When we work together on consensus judicial nominees we can make progress," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the incoming Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Bush did the opposite this week, renominating six judges, four of them vehemently opposed by Democrats. Leahy said the renominations amounted to the White House "taking the bait of right-wing partisan groups."

"Advice and consent does not mean giving the president a free pass to pack the courts with ideologues from the right or left," Leahy said. "The American people want the Senate to be more than a rubber stamp.""

I don't think I'm going to worry about this.