The Nuclear Option

With the beginning of confirmation hearings for President Trump’s Cabinet
appointments and eventually his Supreme Court nominee, I’m sure you’ve
heard on television, radio, or read in a newspaper something about the
“nuclear option.” You may recall it being discussed before, about 2013,
after there was strong opposition given to some of President Obama’s
appointments. The nuclear option is a ruling in “parliamentary procedure”
that removes the typical threshold of Senators necessary to overcome a
filibuster on a confirmation; instead of requiring 60 Senators for
legislation, or 2/3rds of Senators for amending Senate rules, all it takes
is a simple majority vote (50%+1).

This translates into the ability of the Senate majority to ignore any
serious effort by the minority to oppose appointments and force candidates
and laws through the Senate. When the nuclear option was finally put into
power in 2013 under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV),
it had long been a known issue in the Senate.

For instance, in 1917, 100 years ago, the nuclear option’s existence caused
the Senate to reform their filibuster rules.

At the time, Senator Thomas J. Walsh (D-MT) noted that while Senate required
a 2/3rds majority to approve rule changes, the Constitution stated that
“each House could determine its’ rules of proceedings” which meant either
House could decide all decisions be resolved by a simple majority.

His conclusion caused a shakeup in the understanding of procedures and
new rules of cloture (cloture is the procedure to end a debate and take a vote) were adopted to fix the hole Walsh had noted in the rules of operations.

In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon wrote an opinion on the proceedings of the Senate that the US
Constitution still granted the presiding officer the authority to override
rules. In 1975, acting to make cloture more achievable, the new Democrat
majority made the necessary amount of Senators 60 and “having been sworn
in” rather than “present and voting”.

But after almost a hundred years of trying to avoid such a blatant
crackdown on opposition in Congress, Senate Democrats ended the tense, but
respected tradition. After the filibusters of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz
occurred on intelligence appointments, Senator Harry Reid felt it was
necessary to ensure that Republicans who protested the appointments be
incapable of stalling their path to carrying out their duties.
Now in 2017, with Republicans in charge of the Senate again, and with a
President amenable to their will in the White House, the nuclear option
presents itself as a possibility again.

When Senator Reid eliminated the ability of the filibuster to stand in as a protest of truly awful or
corrupt appointments, I protested it and considered it a violation of the
peace in Congress. Senator Harry Reid had turned to his associates and said
“Peace or War” and when Republicans protested, he said “war.”
With the nuclear option being the new tradition, Senator Mitch McConnell
has stated that Gorsuch will pass, but how he passes will depend on what
Senate Democrats do.

Facing the sword they once used on Republicans, Democrats are presented
with McConnell saying “I would say that is up to our Democrat friends.”
With the offer of “peace or war” on the table to Democrats, if Democrats
decide to protest at the threat like Republicans did 4 years ago, here is
what will happen.

Mitch McConnell will enact the Nuclear Option on Supreme Court nominees,
ensuring that from this point forward the Justices that make it to the
Supreme Court will not be non-partisan options favored by all, but be
politicized warriors for whichever party holds the Senate. As a Republican
and Conservative, this situation worries me gravely. For however we may
talk about the President’s executive orders treading against the intent and
tradition of the Constitution, the act of turning our last legislative
institution that forces unity to become a battleground of politicization is
a breaking of tradition I cannot stand.
The nuclear option is an admission that the two parties are irreconcilable.

It is an agreement by the two parties to refuse to find common ground, to
reject subduing of their hearts and ideologies for the sake of the people.
And with Supreme Court nominees no longer needing 60 votes, the Court will
go from a “4 Liberals/3 Conservatives/1 Moderate” makeup as it is now to
eventually a “5/4” or “6/3” split that always favors one party or the
other’s ideologies. Perhaps there will be appointments of good people,
persons like Gorsuch who stand not for their personal values, but the
Constitution’s. Institutionalizing the end of peace, the Era of the Nuclear
Option will not see many such persons seated on the Supreme Court.

Michael McKinney is a former St. Joseph resident that writes for the
Leader. He can be reached at

Categories (2):Columns, Opinions


The Leader embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. we reserve the right to remove any comment at its discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Antoniokim wrote on June 14, 2017 at 4:06 am
Profile Picture

I’m a large fan of your net sites and constantly looking all of the article of your blogs and i accept as true with extra unfathomable articles could be posted on your website. Appreciative to you one of these outstanding total for this and continue sharing.   Henry Danger Costume Leather Jacket

Event Calendar

Today's Events  |  FAQ
Log in to add an event