If the Republicans go "nuclear"...

[Moooooo]

Will it have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on the 2006 midterms?  In other words, is it something the Democrats could use against Republican incumbents?

[A18]

It would take away our advantage of painting the Democrats as obstructionists, so I guess "negative," but it would not in and of itself hurt as at all, and I'm not worried about it in the least.

We should definitely go nuclear.

[Moooooo]

Has every president in U.S. history received an up or down vote on his nominees?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Has every president in U.S. history received an up or down vote on his nominees?

Clinton had plenty of nominees that never came up for a full Senate vote.  Bush has gotten far more of his nominees approved than Clinton. In particular it helped Bush that there were a lot of empty judicial positions thanks to the blocking of Clinton appointees.

[Moooooo]

Clinton had plenty of nominees that never came up for a full Senate vote.  Bush has gotten far more of his nominees approved than Clinton.

I think they were blocked in committee.  Still, I see your point.  They never received an up or down vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton had plenty of nominees that never came up for a full Senate vote.  Bush has gotten far more of his nominees approved than Clinton.

I think they were blocked in committee.  Still, I see your point.  They never received an up or down vote.

Some failed on cloture votes, which are really identiical to fillibuster votes. 60 yes votes are need for both.

[A18]

Irrelevant unless they would have had the 51 votes anyway, which the Democrats did not.

Anyway, they had no real way of changing the rules.

[J. J.]

I would suspect the "nuclear option" to be successfully challenged in court, because its base is constitutional.

There are better ways.  :-)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would suspect the "nuclear option" to be successfully challenged in court, because its base is constitutional.

How so?

[DanielX]

It depends. It would have a negative effect, but if the Democrats carry out their threat to stop all Senate business is carried out, it'll be positive.

[AuH2O]

It would be hard to challenge in court, because it wouldn't actually involve passing a law, it would just be a ruling from the chair on Senate rules (and it would be an interpretation, not a new rule).

I see no real political downside, so why not?

[MissCatholic]

This is a very dangerous course to go.

Not only is it changing the rules mid game. it could be used agaisnt them in years to come when dems ahve control of the senate.

[A18]

It already can be used against us.

[AuH2O]

The Senate (and House actually) is structurally tilted towards the GOP. So worrying about a Democratic takeover isn't really worth it.

[jacob_101]

This is a very dangerous course to go.

Not only is it changing the rules mid game. it could be used agaisnt them in years to come when dems ahve control of the senate.

It should be an up or down vote no matter which party is in power.

[A18]

This is a very dangerous course to go.

Not only is it changing the rules mid game. it could be used agaisnt them in years to come when dems ahve control of the senate.

It should be an up or down vote no matter which party is in power.

Agreed.