Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:38:42.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nuclear Option for Stopping Filibusters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

Robert Klotz
Robert Klotz
Affiliation:
University of Southern Maine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

They did not seem to be in a position to help the other body. Yet, on October 10, 2002, members of the House Judiciary Committee listened to witnesses discuss how the Senate could be more efficient. In 2003, Senate committees heard similar testimony. During the hearings, eminent law professors suggested that the practice of allowing filibusters on judicial nominees could not be imposed by previous Senates on the current one. It, therefore, would be within the power of the 51 Republican Senators to uphold a point of order against the filibuster and proceed to govern by majority rule (Kmiec 2003). In Washington, this course of action is called the “nuclear option.” Although the informal use of the nuclear option has several variations, each variation has a common underlying feature that can be formally defined. The nuclear option is a dramatic refusal to recognize delaying tactics permitted under the rules that facilitates the institutionalization of majoritarian procedures in a legislative body. Occurring in legislatures such as the 1881 British House of Commons, the use of the nuclear option can be a watershed event wherever the majority lacks an unassailable way to end debate.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 843 - 846
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binder Sarah A. 1996. “The Partisan Basis of Procedural Choice: Allocating Parliamentary Rights in the House, 1789–1990.” American Political Science Review 90 (1): 8–20.Google Scholar
Binder Sarah A., and Steven S. Smith. 1997. Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Busbey L. White. 1927. Uncle Joe Cannon: The Story of a Pioneer American. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Cheney Richard B., and Lynne V. Cheney. 1983. Kings of the Hill: Power and Personality in the House of Representatives. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
CR [Congressional Record]. Various volumes. Washington, D.C.: GPO.Google Scholar
Delker Neals-Erik William. 1996. “The House Three-Fifths Tax Rule: Majority Rule, the Framers' Intent, and the Judiciary's Role.” Dickinson Law Review 100 (2): 341– 382.Google Scholar
Dion Douglas. 1997. Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew: Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gordon v. Lance. 403 US 1 (1971).Google Scholar
Jefferson Thomas. 1853. A Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Philadelphia: Parrish, Dunning & Mears.Google Scholar
Kmiec Douglas W. 2003. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. June 5. C-SPAN.Google Scholar
Lodge Henry C., ed. 1900. The Federalist. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Lowell A. Lawrence. 1908. The Government of England, Volume 1. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mayhew David R. 2003. “Supermajority Rule in the U.S. Senate.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (1): 31–36.Google Scholar
McElroy Robert. 1930. Levi Parsons Morton: Banker, Diplomat and Statesman. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
McGinnis John O., and Michael B. Rappaport. 1995. “The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense.” Yale Law Journal 105 (2): 483–511.Google Scholar
McGrain v. Daugherty. 273 US 135 (1927).Google Scholar
Robinson William A. 1930. Thomas B. Reed: Parliamentarian. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.Google Scholar
Rogers Lindsay. 1926. The American Senate. New York: F. S. Crofts & Co.Google Scholar
Rothman David J. 1966. Politics and Power: The United States Senate 1869–1901. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Strahan Randall. 2002. “Leadership and Institutional Change in the Nineteenth-Century House.” In Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress, eds. David W. Brady and Mathew McCubbins. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 237–269.Google Scholar
Tuchman Barbara W. 1966. The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War 1890–1914. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Ballin. 144 US 1 (1892).Google Scholar