{"id":3841,"date":"2005-03-29T09:30:08","date_gmt":"2005-03-29T14:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/3841.html"},"modified":"2005-03-29T09:30:08","modified_gmt":"2005-03-29T14:30:08","slug":"a-radical-scheme-by-any-other-name-is-still-a-radical-scheme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/a-radical-scheme-by-any-other-name-is-still-a-radical-scheme\/","title":{"rendered":"A radical scheme by any other name is still a radical scheme"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Senate Republicans first came up with the idea of barring judicial filibusters by a simple majority vote, they, not Dems, labeled it the “nuclear option.” As the Washington Times reported<\/a> two years ago:<\/p>\n

Republicans could immediately break the current filibusters against two of President Bush’s judicial nominees with a rarely used parliamentary procedure that would confirm them through a simple majority vote, according to a plan under consideration by Senate Republicans. <\/p>\n

The tactic would be so drastic in the usually congenial Senate that Republicans refer to it as their “nuclear option.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The phrase apparently didn’t poll well. It led Senate Republicans, for a while at least, to start calling the tactic their “constitutional option<\/a>.” The substance was the same, but the language was probably intended to sound less apocalyptic.<\/p>\n

But the new name didn’t quite stick, so the GOP has settled on a third label for their tactic: the Byrd Option<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In an interview [Sunday] with Fox News, Senate Majority Whip Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) defended the conservatives’ consideration of detonating the nuclear option to push through President Bush’s controversial judicial re-nominees. However, instead of calling the move what it is, McConnell stated it would best be described as the “Byrd option.” He then continued on to assert, “I don’t want to get too technical here, but the point is, what Senator Frist is considering doing is not unprecedented. It was done by Senator Byrd when he was majority leader.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By avoiding getting “too technical,” McConnell also avoided telling the whole truth.
\n
\nIt’s true that Byrd, as Senate Majority Leader, faced a Republican minority that had raised considerable fuss over Carter’s judicial nominees. As part of a compromise, Byrd agreed to changes in the Senate schedule. As People for the American Way explained<\/a>:<\/p>\n

In 1980, then majority leader Robert C. Byrd asserted the right of the Senate to consider nominations out of the order listed in the Senate’s calendar of business. However, adoption of this practice only affected the process for scheduling business in the Senate. It did nothing to restrict Senators’ right to debate and filibuster on a nomination.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What does this have to do with permanently changing the Senate’s filibuster rules? Nothing, but that won’t stop Senate Republicans from clinging to their new label.<\/p>\n

In fact, we should have seen this coming. Bill Frist started alluding<\/a> to Byrd’s 1980 compromise a couple of weeks ago, which was then picked up by conservative outlets like National Review<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These rhetorical games may make the right feel better, but the impact is likely to be negligible. Reporters, staffers on the Hill, and even lawmakers when they’re not putting on a show for the media all call this move the “nuclear option.” Besides, at this stage in the game, what Republicans call the tactic probably won’t have any bearing on whether they have the votes to pass it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When Senate Republicans first came up with the idea of barring judicial filibusters by a simple majority vote, they, not Dems, labeled it the “nuclear option.” As the Washington Times reported two years ago: Republicans could immediately break the current filibusters against two of President Bush’s judicial nominees with a rarely used parliamentary procedure that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}