Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A ghost (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 24 January 2006 (→"In 1995, Democrats held the White House and a majority of the Senate"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 ( all to June 27, 2005):
• Archive 2 (next to start):

please sign your posts with ~~~~

138.162.0.46

This diff shows blatant use of Weasel word phrase "most believed".

"As Reid cited no specific law that would be violated, most believed he was just acting as a partisan activist rather than legal scholar."

Without a citation to support "most believed" the view that Reid was a "partisan activist", this also qualifies as violating No original research, since the view can be considered to be invented by the editor, as well as violating Neutral point of view.

Furthermore this diff shows a massive POV rewrite of article, yet the explanation simply says something about a quote from "Robertson". FuelWagon 22:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tempshill

This diff shows a POV edit, including the addition of this new paragraph.

The Senate has many ways to frustrate a Presidential appointment other than the filibuster; there is no Constitutional or legal requirement for the Senate to actually hold an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. A group of Senators may tie up the vote in the Judiciary Committee indefinitely by various means, or actually vote it down; the vote can be tabled or otherwise delayed on the floor; holds can be obtained; and a filibuster can be conducted, among other tactics.

The word "frustrate" is an extremely POV way to represent the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent with the president. Also, in another paragraph, you changed a sentence to read:

Thus the GOP will eventually need tools like the filibuster to block the appointment of an extremist judge for the Democratic party.

This is a POV edit to say "eventually", since it assumes that democrats must 'eventually' appoint an extremist judge. FuelWagon 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

209.247.222.102

This sentence added by you:

Conversely, many Democrats and Republicans view McCains effort as an attempt to block support for Frist anticipating McCain will run in the 2008 GOP primaries also.

Needs a source to support it. Otherwise the accusation that McCain brokered a deal specifically to torpedo Frist's run for president in 2008 so that McCain could run for president (and that he did it for no other reason than that) is an extreme point of view without foundation. Also, the quantifier "many" seems questionable. FuelWagon 17:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Richard A. Griffin & David W. McKeague -- fillibustered?

The following was added recently (not by me) to the list of nominees who were confirmed after the fillibuster compromise was reached, but was reverted:

Richard A. Griffin was confirmed 95-0, and David W. McKeague was confirmed 96-0.

I'm not sure the circumstances, but I do believe they were somehow held up because of the fillibuster threat, although, as the votes would seem to indicate, there wasn't too much opposition. Anyone know the details behind their cases, and should they be included in the article? Geoff.green 00:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The democrats were blocking Brown and Owen. It was a call for cloture on one of these two by Frist that triggered the showdown on the nuclear option. This then pushed McCain and the gang of 14 to come to their compromise. This compromise allowed the nominees being filibustered to be confirmed. Griffin and McKeague had nothing to do with it. And it isn't a question of Democrats blocking all nominees by Bush, it's a matter of them blocking the extremists. FuelWagon 00:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

So I assume it was that Griffin & McKeague weren't being blocked, but that Frist had decided to push Brown et al. ahead of them to bring the fillibuster threat to a head? That's what seems logical to me at least. Geoff.green 01:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Frist focused on the most controversial nominees first. If he had focused on one of Bush's uncontroversial nominee, then Democrats would have simply confirmed the uncontroversial one. And claims of "Senate Obstructionism" would be blown out of the water. That's why they couldn't accept Reid's offer to confirm one of Bush's nominees as a sign of good faith. They demanded "all or nothing" as an attempt to push blame back on Democrats. So when Frist pushed for the nomination of Owens, he knew the Democrats would filibuster, and once that happened, he would have political justification to pull the nuclear option trigger to break the filibuster. FuelWagon 00:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup

I added the cleanup flag. I don't have the time to go through it, but there are some redundancies and overall the article looks ugly. Someone should spend some time and tidy things up. TheSolomon 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's like someone wrote a chronological article and someone else wrote an article organized by topic and someone else smashed the two together and some of it just doesn't make any sense. For example, how encyclopedic is this?

On the Princeton University campus, outside the Frist Campus Center (named for Senator Bill Frist's family) students staged a protest against the nuclear option by "filibustering" for two weeks non-stop, beginning on April 26, 2005. Other protests took place at Carleton College, Yale University, Harvard University, Stanford University and Iowa State University. Students at the University of South Carolina organized a counterprotest "point of order" in support of ending judicial filibusters on May 20, 2005. patsw 22:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And also the code word "nuclear option" should be revised out of the text wherever possible. I'd like to see it replaced with "allowing filibusters" or "not allowing filibusters" or "limiting filibusters" - whatever the case may be.

I don't like having the article itself using the political code word. Because it makes it sound like Misplaced Pages is agreeing with the concept that stopping a filibuster is as harmful as dropping a nuclear bomb. That is actually the POV of one of the political parties, isn't it? Uncle Ed 20:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "nuclear option" was invented by Republicans. It's what it was called until they realized it sounded "scary" and picked something anodyne like "the constitutional option". It would be revisionist of Misplaced Pages to pretend that the term never existed.

Speaking of cleanup, the use of capitalization for official titles on this page is atrociously un-uniform. Would someone be willing to help me apply this rule from the wikipedia: manual of style: "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan". Similarly "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Likewise, royal titles should be capitalized: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness". (Reference: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed., par. 7.16; The Guardian Manual of Style, "Titles" keyword.) Exceptions may apply for specific offices." ? --Schlemazl 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Daphne's edit

I'm working on integrating Daphne's edits to the intro. The wording and structure now seems dated, so let's see if we can improve it.--ghost 15:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

constitutional option against democrat(communist) party

That's from the first paragraph (as of 01-12-2006, 10pm GMT-8). What on earth? Shouldn't that say "nuclear option"? --Robert 06:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Constitutionality

This article is terribly POV. There isn't even a mention of "legislative entrenchment" and the fact that it is nearly universally considered to be unconstitutional.--70.219.15.40

I understand your concern. I take it your issue with POV is over tone, not fact(s), correct? If there are erronious facts, please help us to correct them, or discuss with us what you feel is incorrect. If you have concerns over tone, please help us understand where you feel the tone creates bias. Could you give us quotes and references on "Legislative entrenchment"? Thanks for your concern.--ghost 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this page needs a lot of work.

LOL - I'm way in over my head cleaning it up but detonating the nuclear option has nothing to do with filibusters. The nuclear option is nuclear because it changes how the Senate changes rules. Now the rules they change with it could be related to filibusters, could be related to any number of things. But nothing about the nuclear option relates directly to filibusters. The two thirds vote required to change Senate rules protected the Senate from being severely buffeted in partisan winds and made bi-partisan work mandatory - nothing could be accomplished without it. But with a simple majority necessary to change rules, one party could very effectively make it impossible for the other party to impact the legislative agenda. The founding fathers designed the system to prevent that very thing from happening. That's why the nuclear option is nuclear - it shatters the template put in place by our founding fathers and substitutes simply partisan intemperance for enforced deliberation. The Democrats may have been the party to oppose it, but it was the Republicans that dubbed it "nuclear" and they did so for a very good reason.

Very few in the media understood or took the time to define what the nuclear option actually was , but it is imperative, of course, that we be very clear here. The discussion of the filibuster rule change should be a small mention on that page and most likely requires a page of its own, or perhaps extended discussion on the page about filibusters.

Now, I have to figure out how to sign my name.

Daphne DeHaviland 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This rule change has been considered to a lesser or greater degree since the beginning of the century. And it has everything to do with filibusters. In fact, the two-thirds vote has been watered down on most issues over time, including the filibuster. Finally, the recent debate over the rule change that was referred to as the "Nuclear option" was aimed only at filibusters of judicial candidates. Although I agree that the media did a fair-poor job of reporting the events and their significance, this focus was voiced by Senators precisely because they feared weakening the Senate's filibuster rule more than that.

I appreciate your enthusiasm. And I agree that any Misplaced Pages article might need work. However, until we refute the evidence offered in the links and references, we should resist a major rewrite of the type you describe.--ghost 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The nuclear option is a method to change rules - not a method to end filibusters. By including lots of information about filibusters, you confuse the reader. Yes, of course, Republican proposed invoking it to change the rules regarding filibusters, but it can be used equally to change any rule. I'll see what kind of references I can find. I do know that one person observed that it would reduce the Senate to a game of "Calvin Ball" once unleashed. LOL

Daphne DeHaviland 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The GOP position is that the nuclear option can only be applied to constitutional issues, notably advise and consent motions. Rjensen 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(indented for clarity-ghost) Do we have bi-partisan consensus on that? If not, perhaps it belongs in the third paragraph. Daphne DeHaviland 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rjensen, can you please get us a reference on that? I'm curious if they're talking about constitutional advise and consent motions or filibusters on such motions. I think it would help Daphne and me.--ghost 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding, from statements from GOP Senators, that the "nuclear option" pertained to rules changes surrounding filibusters of judicial canidates only. Not Senate rules in general, as your wording implies. Most Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority. Thus the extensive filibuster references, and the background as to why this change was deemed necessary by some Senators and not others. To remove the filibuster references entirely would be to remove the context the reader needs to understand the issue, and create a POV fork--ghost 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Frist repeatedly calls it a "constitutional option" because of the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution. He seems to me to be saying the Constitution requires a vote on all 'advise & consent' nominees (which indeed is much broader than just judicial nominees). See http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=1878&Month=3&Year=2005 Rjensen 10:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Any editors interpretation of someone's use of a word or phrase is the POV of the editor. Therefore, it does not belong here. In order to address the concerns of those who use the minority-usage of "Constitutional option" instead of "Nuclear option", there is a redirect in place for Constitutional option. This is intended to point the reader to the majority-usage of the phrase, without jamming anything down someone's throat.--ghost 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Weasel Words

A recent edit by Rjensen attributed the fears over the Nuclear option to a particular political party. In order to support such a change, we'd need referencing and/or a quote. Especially since the article refutes this point.--ghost 14:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

try the debate between two senators at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-25.html

Rjensen 10:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

With due respect for the effort, the article clear points out that the origin of the term "Nuclear option" is bipartisan. The link provided (thank you) is unfortunately insufficient because the interview (and debate in the interview over the term) occured after the effort of party leaders to define usage along partisan lines.--ghost 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"In 1995, Democrats held the White House and a majority of the Senate"

This sentence is inaccurate. In 1995, the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. -- 69.19.2.36 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, thx. Good catch. Feel free to fix it yourself, if you like.--ghost 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

3/5ths Majority

I moved the following here from the end of the first paragraph of this section:

Republicans retort that they have been winning the elections and in a democracy the winners rule, not the minority, and that the Constitution has several supermajorities (such as 2/3 needed to ratify a treaty), and that the Founders did not put in a 3/5 or any supermajority for confirmations. That is the Republicans claim that the Constitution has always assumed a majority vote for confirmations, and that "advise and consent" is a positive mandate for holding a vote.

This needs thourgh referencing to support these statements.--ghost 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)