« Radioactive waste: safe from terrorists or not? | Main | Are Canadian Authorities Exaggerating About Avian Flu? »

March 28, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d83423d4f353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notes on the Nuclear Option -- Part VIII:

» Studying the "Nuclear Option" from Swing State Project
While Senator Republican Leader Bill Frist is whipping the zealots into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy over the GOP plot for absolute power, people who care about the Constitution, checks and blances, seperation of power, minority rights, and the instit... [Read More]

» Studying the "Nuclear Option" from Swing State Project
While Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist is whipping the zealots into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy over the GOP plot for absolute power, people who care about the Constitution, checks and blances, seperation of power, minority rights, and the institu... [Read More]

» Bloggers' Parlimentarian from Swing State Project
Yes, the bloggers have a Parlimentarian. His name is Kagro X. When he writes at The Next Hurrah, you should read: Nuclear Option Proliferation Notes on the Nuclear Option -- Part II Notes on the Nuclear Option -- Part III Notes on the Nuclear Option --... [Read More]

Comments

Here's the scenario I fear: The Republican leadership want to get rid of the filibuster for judges but enough Republicans join the correct side and stand firm with the Democrats. Ok so what does the Leadership do? Gavel the Senate into session at 4 am with all their supporters. Cheney makes his ruling as fast as his broken heart can do so. Rule changed?

You might find this of interest:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253258

Anything can happen -- for instance, TNH now remembers my personal info.

I'm not entirely sure what sorts of formal rules versus informal understandings govern unanimous consent agreements, or more importantly, agreements to honor another absent Senator's objection to unanimous consent, but if the Senate went into session at 4 a.m. with nobody around but supporters, I don't think they'd have to change the rules. They could just ask unanimous consent to consider the nomination and proceed immediately to a vote. There wouldn't be any need to wake Cheney.

But if they decided to change the rule, I guess they could do that, too. I'd have to dig through the rules and precedents a little bit to answer that one more thoroughly, though.

Once you get agreement from the chair that the rules that normally govern how the Senate may change its rules don't apply, however, I suppose all bets are off.

If I were Cheney I'd change the rule at 4am, because once I pulled a stunt like approving judges at 4am I'd expect the other side to have a Senator camped out in the chambers 24/7 thenceforth.

This sort of stuff is all fascinating, I appreciate the effort you put into writing it up.

Why can't the Democrats object to unanimous consent on the nuclear option?

I don't understand why they didn't object to unanimous consent on bankruptcy and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. What am I missing here? Are they worried that Sam Donaldson and David Broder will give them a stern lecture?

They can object, they just have to be there to do it. TealVeal is talking about a middle-of-the-night, no notice session.

As for the other things, unanimous consent is not the only way to bring a bill to the floor, it's just the preferred way. A majority vote can bring anything up for consideration.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad