Talk:Nuclear option/Archive 1

Another View
Isn't the opposite of opposition support? Why is just highlighted as "another view"? Chemboss

Technicality should be clarified
This page doesn't make it clear what the technicality in the Senate rules is. As I understand it, a rule change generally takes a supermajority, so I take it this is an exception for judges. If not, the Republicans could certainly dismantle the filibuster altogether, which would make Reid's threats null and void, so I think it should be stated if that's the case.

WikiAce 22:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The majority of this article sounds a bit subjective
Especially the part where it says that Republicans told a "blatant lie". External links only show democratic voice.

Brianreading 06:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure where "blatant lie" came from. I removed it. Also fixed the link to point to the yahoo article that actually contained the polling information. Not sure if yahoo changed their archives or someone used the wrong link. FuelWagon 13:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I also added links to Frist's home page and an article by a republican senator "calling dems bluff". Better? FuelWagon 13:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opposition
The point of the opposition POV is that a republican president plus a republican majority in the senate allows the president to appoint partisan (republican) judges who only get approved by republican senators. This is why the nuclear option is opposed. Taking out "partisan" or removing the party affiliation of "republican" removes the entire reason why the nuclear option is being opposed. That is the Democrat's point of view for opposing it. There is no justification for weakening their argument. It is factual. the fact that it is partisan and republican is factual. And there is no justification for deleting those pieces of information.


 * My only substantive change has been to clarify the history of the use of the term, which, until fairly recently was used by both sides.--CSTAR 03:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that although that is the current situation (Republican President + Republican Senate), the roles can be reversed in the future. And no, I believe the nuclear option would weaken the Senate's check on the President, not eliminate it. A Republican Senate can still theoretically vote down a Republican President's nominee by a straight majority no vote for any or no reason, with or with out the minority party(ies) support, although in practice it is much less likely. Please advise on how to work that in in a NPOV fashion. Ngchen 03:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a current event, perhaps we can put the "current ongoing event" marker on the article. It seems that since the current distribution of republican president/republican senators/republican judges will be valid for at least another three years, so I see no reason to write it as if there were a hypothetical sitiation of democratic president/democrat majority in senate/democratic judges. The article starts out by firmly placing the term "nuclear option" into the year 2005. And as the term gets changed and rearranged over the years, "nuclear option" will refer to the time frame from 2004 to 2005 only, therefore, it ought to be written as a window into that section of time. Since the republicans already want to dub it the "constitutional option", I think it's safe to say that "nuclear option" is specific to Frist/Reid in 2005. FuelWagon 12:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees
The link that follows the "Republicans employed the technique of filibustering judicial nominees under Clinton" statement does not speak to that issue. Could we get a link that documents Republican filibustering of Clinton's nominees?

Republicans not only blocked judicial nominees, they justified it passionately. I don't have time to add this myself, though. Dave (talk) 13:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's weird. Does Yahoo move it's news articles around? This is the second time I've tried to fix the URL. I changed it to the article quoting Clinton calling it a "hoax". FuelWagon 14:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That article doesn't reference filibustering either. It just says Republicans blocked nominees - most of these occurred in committee.  The one Dave posted seems to come closest - Sarokin in 1994, Paez, Berzon in 2000 - although these were eventually voted on, as there was not enough support for the filibusters.  So, it might be good to include a note that these were attempted filibusters by a small number of Republicans. - BRJ


 * I changed those two sentences to read: "However, Republicans attempted to filibuster several judicial nominees under Clinton. Each time, the Senate voted to close debate and end the filibuster. In fact, while Democrats have only blocked 10 of President Bush's nominees, Republicans blocked 40 of Clinton's, mainly by denying hearings for the nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee." And added the CBS News link Dave provided, as it seemd to contain more and better information. - BRJ


 * The Clinton quote is in response to "senate obstructionism" label, which applies whether it is fillibustering or death by committee. FuelWagon 17:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, although the nuclear option would only affect the filibuster, as far as I know, and so I thought the CBS link was a bit more germane to this topic.


 * The distinction is that all the techniques used by the Republicans (Blue Slip, block in committee, etc.) can be overruled by majority vote, but the filibuster cannot (unless the rules are changed, ie nuclear option is employed). I'll look for a link and add later. --Jperlin 22:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dole
I don't think it can be claimed any longer that Bob Dole opposes the nuclear option given his clarifying comments here -. Feel free to update if you disagree. --Jperlin 01:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

National Review
I removed National Review from the opposition. While they may have made some comment at one time or another that the nuclear option should be used as a last resort, the editorial policy is clearly in support of the Republican position - see and  for instance. --Jperlin 20:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * The comment was there when I started editing the article. Not sure where it came from. I took it on "good faith" that it was legit, since a link to Robert Novak was supplied, even though a link to National Review was not. I moved it from the intro down into the oppose/support section and tried to keep it in integrity, under the assumption it was legit. I was more focused on making the whole article readable at the time. I'm not surprised that more links point to their support of the nuclear option. I'll take a cited claim over an uncited claim anytime. Thanks for the cleanup.

A bit subjective?
Wow... a bunch of partisan tripe. I would expect better of Wikipedia.


 * Um, partisan for which party would that be?--CSTAR 21:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hahahahaha --Jperlin 05:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

First cut

 * ... term makes no reference to any political party, so it would also apply to the maneuver being used under a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress.


 * As of spring 2005, proponents have attempted to introduce terminology which makes the action sound less explosively controversial, such as "constitutional option," suggesting that the term "nuclear option" was coined by the maneuver's opponents. However, the ...

Second cut

 * Adding to the confusion over terminology, Republicans have also made an attempt to switch the meaning of the term, using "nuclear option" to describe the Democratic filibuster, instead of the rule change that would end it.

I believe I remember hearing nuclear option used in both ways: (1) ending the standoff by forcing a vote (by limiting filibuster via 50% majority); as well as (2) "nuking" all the president's non-Democratic-approved nominees by using a filibuster via a 40% minority).

The issue is whether nominees can be turned down with 50% or 40%. Republicans want to "go back" to 50%. Democrats want to continue using 40%.

Makes me wonder why Bush doesn't use a recess appointment.

My position
It shouldn't matter, but for those who are impertinently curious, I don't care one way or the other. I just want the rhetoric about all these maneuvers to be neutral. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Filibuster article
This is a really good article, but it would be great if some of this effort could go into expanding filibuster itself! Just a thought. zellin 03:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vocabulary
The vocabulary section should hardly go at the end. Indeed, the article is about a linguistic expression (read the first sentence); the facts about usage discussed in the vocabulary part are relevant, moreso than "recent events", particularly since much of the controvesry stems from the negative connotation of the terminology.--CSTAR 20:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

this rewrite is a piece of crap
the new intro sucks, is longwinded, and is pretty pro-nuclear-option POV. FuelWagon 22:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This should be a simple article. Present the basic issue in the intro, and then let each side state their POV. wrap up with nitty gritty details and whatnot. FuelWagon 23:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is utterly incomprehensible starting at the first sentence--CSTAR 00:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep the intro NPOV
That there is a controversy about the judical apointments is a fact. The phrase " the current nominees controversial enough to be filibustered by Senate Democrats" is POV. It implies that there is something wrong with the nominees, not the Democrats. Similarly to say "If the nuclear option is enacted now, it will prepare the Senate for a partisan judge to be nominated by Bush" is POV. What constitutes a partisan judge? The Republicans claim existing judges are partisan.

I happen to agree with the Democratic POV, but I would like to avoid the kind of edit wars that seem to afflict other controversies on Wikipedia. The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to keep the intro neutral and have sections where each side's position is fairly presented. --agr 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. That's bullshit. Brown and Owen are controversial. There is a laundry list of groups that have weighed in opposing their confirmation. That isn't something that happens with every nominee. Calling them controversial isn't POV if its fact. There is a firestorm of controversy around their confirmation. This is whitewashing reality. FuelWagon 05:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The descriptions of the "contested nominees" are heavily slanted
and amount to little more than a regurgitation of the liberal interest groups' talking points. The only facts that appear in the nominees' defense are ones that I had to insert myself.

I think it would be better if this section was placed elsewhere in the article (rather than as a subheading in the section on the opposition to the constitutional option, since its current placement implies that the records of the nominees justify the use of the filibuster; many would certainly assert that the nominees are eminently worthy of confirmation). This section should also make an effort to be truly balanced. Hbomb1947 14:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think the "opposition" section contains a couple of sections that should be full headings, not subheadings and should be neutral. Dave (talk) 14:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Another section that should be more than a Democratic subheading is "legitimacy of the filibuster."  For now, I have added language to make that section more balanced -- especially in the discussion of the the filibuster of Justice Fortas's 1968 nomination to be elevated from Associate Justice to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Hbomb1947 19:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * bullshit. the whole reason democrats are using the filibuster is because Brown and Owen are partisan extremists who will only get support from republican senators. the nuclear option will break the filibuster and allow their confirmation. The nuclear option is opposed specifically because of the 7 extremists judges currently nominated and because of the possibility of an extremist Supreme Court nominee in the near future. So these judges and the democratic opposition to them is the core reason for opposition to the nuclear option. What is there belongs in the opposition section. If you want to balance it, put republican support of these nominees in another section. but dont tell me you're rewriting that section to achieve balance and then use it as an excuse to weaking the opposition view against the nuclear option. "oh, I'll just move this down here, and then rewrite a couple of things. and then take out this nasty comment. and say she is "emminently worthy"" That is absolute bullshit. FuelWagon 05:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that FuelWagon views this article as a chance to enshrine one side's talking points. He can keep trying to erase my balanced language, and I will keep restoring it to ensure that both points of view are represented.  Just because one side claims that the 7 judges are extremist, doesn't make it so.  There's no justification for presenting a one-sided discussion of them in an article that purports to be dispassionate and scholarly. Hbomb1947 22:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's entirely reasonable, as Hbomb1947 attempted, to include in-line balancing of clearly POV statements on a hugely contentious subject, rather than moving them to another section where they can be safely ignored by people who want to establish their POV as "indisputed facts of the case". FuelWagon's comments above clearly demonstrate that he has a passionately-held POV on this subject, and if he can't detatch it from the main article, he should recuse himself from the writing of the article. User:Simon Dodd 21:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Get over yourself. You insert the "POV" tag in a section marked "opposition", which represents the opposition point of view, call the direct quotes with citations as biased, insert a number of uncited statements that might as well say "some people think they're really good people", and then end the whole section by "begging the question" ("If they're so bad, why did they win election?"). So your POV is just as obvious as mine. But at least I'm honest about it and don't go around telling people I've "detached myself". Please. FuelWagon 05:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I'm actually trying to balance the article - an article you seem incapable of accepting the partisan bias of which (see above, "bullshit. the whole reason democrats are using the filibuster is because Brown and Owen are partisan extremist") - I think it entirely proper to use what resources are available. The truth is non-partisan; for example, you characterize Brown as "anti civil rights" because she opposes affirmative action. The fact is merely that Brown is opposed to AA, but the characterization of that viewpoint as "anti civil rights" is a POV which rests on the assumption that affirmative action and vicil rights are necessarily synonymous; while that assumption may or may not be true, it is certainly and necessarily a POV. It seems to me that we can strip the article to absolutely nothing but dry, bare facts (which would be a mistake, IMO), or we can allow point-counterpoint, but what you're not going to do is change this into an echo chamber for your own party. Incidentally, I'm a Republican who strongly opposed the nuclear option (and caught a lot of flak for it), so don't be under the misimpression I'm "defending my corner". User:Simon Dodd 09:07, 26 May 2005 (EST)


 * "Since I'm actually trying to balance the article" well, if you say so, it must be true. " you characterize Brown as". Nice. Read the article again. I presented the Democrat point of view by QUOTING several sources. But you don't like that and call it me being an "echo chamber". I didn't characterize anyone. You on the other hand give your personal opinion in the article when you insert uncited, unsourced crap like this: "Supporters counter that, far from being "anti-equality" Brown has attempted to unshackle women and blacks from affirmative action," Who the hell is "supporters". This is about as useless as starting the sentence with "some say", the biggest red-flag that an editor is inserting their own POV. Readers have source for this statement. And while we're talking about that sentnece, "UNSHACKLED FROM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"????? Wow. I didn't know affirmative action held women and blacks in shackles. Do you mean REAL shackles? How many shackled people are we talking about?  If you think that "shackles" is "dry bare facts", balance or non-partisan, then you're a fruitcake. FuelWagon 14:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You suport affirmative action - that's fine, and that's your POV. But it's still a POV. You implicitly introduce POV into the article by conflating "anti civil rights" with "anti-AA". Ipso facto, you're using POV into the article. If you can think of more graceful language with which to make the point that Brown's opponents believe that her opposition to AA shows her as being against civil rights, while others say that her opposition to AA shows her as being FOR civil rights, and you can do it concisely, please feel free. But the point is that this article is skewed to reflect your POV of what is and is not desirable in public policy. Simon Dodd 15:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I dispute your objection to the use of the term "shackled" - "To free from or as if from shackles" - especically in light of the equally emotive language deployed in opposition to Brown, but I've substituted new language instead, and linked to the Wikipedia article on affirative action, whcih presumably includes a discussion of objections to that practise.Simon Dodd 15:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't get it. I didn't put anything in the article that wasn't a quote from some other source (and no, wikipedia isn't a source for wikipedia). What you've put in the article is your words followed by some URL's to support it. What i put in were SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS and a URL to those words. See the difference??? You've also swamped the "other viewpoint" section for Brown far larger than it needs to be. Either cut it or I will. FuelWagon 16:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I just saw this complete POV piece of crap and will kill it on sight if it shows up in the article: Former Chief of Staff to Governor George Deukmejian, Steve Merksamer, charaterized Democrat opposition to brown as follows: "She's a brilliant African American woman who is able to articulate a conservative judicial philosophy, and the Democrats can't stand it...I think it upsets the orthodoxy of the left to have someone who is brilliant and articulate who also happens to be black and female. This assumes the truth in "Brown is brilliant" and then argues that "democrats can't stand" that she's brilliant. Supporting Brown is one thing, twisting the words of the Democrats as to why they oppose her is POV bullshit. The reasons listed in the previous section are why Democrats oppose her. FuelWagon 16:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as the structure of this article, it seems to make a lot more sense to move certain sections (like the discussions of the judges) away from the "support" and "opposition" sections of the article. The reason is that the merits of the "nuclear option" (i.e., history, constitution, etc.) are independent of the particular judges that are CURRENTLY being filibustered. A discussion of the judges would, it seems to me, more properly be placed in a historical lead-up to how we got to the current impasse. And, within that frawmework, under each judge, the pros and cons should be listed. Hbomb1947 22:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Making one section for the views of each side sounds reasonable Dave (talk) 19:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Strawman version of Opposition
I reverted a number of recent changes, the diff block is here:. Someone likes to insert "Democrats assert" every other sentence, and cast doubt on a number of facts. also, some members of the american bar association that gave ratings found Owen to be unfit. someone changed this to "opined". It's all a very nice attempt to rewrite the opposition viewpoint to be little more than unsupported assertions and opinions. And it is complete bullshit. Don't give me a line about making the article "balanced" when all you're doing is weakening the Democrats' reason for opposing the nuclear option to the point that its a strawman argument. FuelWagon 05:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and there were a couple of quotes from cited URL's that were reworded and watered down as well. FuelWagon 05:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The edits you're describing sound pretty bad. Especially "revising" quotations. Have you looked through the history to see who's doing it? Dave (talk) 19:12, May 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah, if you look at that diff above (or here) you'll see a bunch of "democrats assert" inserted in front of facts and you'll see stuff that was quoted directly from a URL reworded to a weaker version. FuelWagon 23:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For example, if the nuclear option is implemented now, it will allow Bush to nominate a partisan judge who can get support from Republican Senators and get nominated. This is a fact. If the nuclear option is enacted, the senate can confirm a partisan (Republican only) judge. someone put "Democrats assert' in front of it and I undid it here. FuelWagon 23:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a direct cut and paste from "The Hill" URL. The Hill used the phrase "leaves little doubt" and someone reworded it to weaken it to say "some assert". I reverted it to the direct line from the URL here. FuelWagon 23:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what it was cutted and pasted from. This wikipedia article was making an assertion, without quotation marks, of a conclusion that is highly disputed (and disputable -- there is a scholarly article cited at the bottom of this wikipedia article that argues persuasively that it is the filibuster of judicial nominees that is at odds with Senate history).  "Leaves little doubt" is inappropriately partisan in that context. Hbomb1947 04:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Another example was a bit that said Republican Senators blocked 60 of clinton's nominees. Someone reworded to say "democrats assert". Well, are you telling me that democratic senators blocked clinton's nominees? The "democrats assert" bit was simly added to weaken the fact of Republican obstructionism. I reverted it here. FuelWagon 23:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Reid made the goodwill gesture to allow one of Bush's controversial nominees to get a vote. Someone inserted "Reid asserted" to weaken the position and again insert doubt. I reverted the edit here. FuelWagon 23:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to the other points when I get the chance, but it's certainly debatable whether Reid's gesture reflected "goodwill" or was just a calculated strategic maneuver. The modification to neutral language will be restored. Hbomb1947 04:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon is talking out of his ass. No quotations were revised.  What was properly modified were points of view that were masquerading as factual statements.  If FuelWagon wants to post his partisan talking points on the MoveOn.org website, that's his prerogative; but I will remain vigilant to ensure that this is a balanced, scholarly article. Hbomb1947 22:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, what do you know, all the edits were by Hbomb1947. Here are all the diffs:


 * "partisan" removed . Reid good will gesture changed to "claimed" . nuclear option and Rehnquist replacement . Republican majority during 6 Clinton years is a fact. changed to "asserted" . "leaves little doubt" from The Hill URL was changed to "asserted"   FuelWagon 00:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, not quite right. I found an anon edit here that changed cut and paste from a LA Time article. "and a style bordering on vituperation" removed. "Some committee members found her" changed to "opined". FuelWagon 00:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ludicrous quote from Christian conservatives
Speaking of strawmen:

The paragraph on the Religious Right supporting the nuclear option -- and specifically, the moronic quote comparing Democratic judges unfavorably with Al Qaeda and the Nazis -- isn't really "support" for the Republican position in any meaningful sense, as it tends only to discredit the person who said it. I'm not sure who posted that quote, but it really has nothing to do with the legitimate arguments based on history, the law, etc. I moved it to the end of the "support" section to de-emphasize it, but maybe it should be eliminated entirely? Hbomb1947 23:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a quote direct from Pat Robertson. If you want, I'll rewrite it and put it in the opposition section. Democrats point to that as evidence that Republicans want right-wing-nut-job Judges endorsed by the 700 club. And since Pat compares "liberal" judges to Al Queda, it's belongs. You sure are trigger happy to remove quotes, hbomb. FuelWagon 00:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to have it moved to the opposition section, since opponents (disingenuously and inaccurately) claim that, as FuelWagon so dispassionately put it, "Republicans want right-wing-nut-job Judges endorsed by the 700 club." Hbomb1947 04:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See, I'm clear about what my position is. I'm clear I have a point of view. And I'm clear about admitting it. I'm not hiding it. You, on the other hand, want to present you pov bullshit as "oh, I'm just trying make this article neutral". You've watered down every statement that supports the democrat pov, you've removed quotes from cited articles, and you want to remove damning (you called it moronic) quotes from Robertson as "not related". You're POV bias is clear and you're trying to position yourself as a neutral editor. Give me a break. hey, if robertson thinks "liberal judges are worse than al queda" don't you think that's a bit of a right wing nut job attitude? Or are you such a right wing nut job that it sounds reasonable? FuelWagon 13:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And therein lies your problem: an inability to filter out your own point of view when contributing to a dispassionate scholarly article. Yes, I have my own point of view, as does any human being who hasn't lived in a cave; but that doesn't entitle me or you or anyone else to present our views as unadulterated fact.  Your false accusation that I have "removed quotes from cited articles" has already been debunked.  When a statement is reprinted without quotation marks, then it is merely an assertion of fact with a citation to the article in which it appeared.  And such an assertion is properly edited where it presents as a conclusion what is actually a debatable issue.  Finally, the fact that wackos on either side of the debate may hold a certain belief, does not mean that the mainstream members of the party hold that view.  But then, with your spouting of a moveon.org phrase like "right wing nut job," it's not clear to me that you are actually capable of being receptive to any of these appeals to reason. Hbomb1947 15:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hbomb, you're only kidding yourself here. you are transparent. You have not "filtered" your own point of view from this article, you have inserted it. "The Hill" reports that the CSR report "leaves little doubt" that the nuclear option is unprecedented. No republicans contested this statement. YOU contested this statement. Frist didn't come out and say the report said something else and that The Hill is putting their spin on things. YOU DID. Unless you can find one of the players involved in teh dispute actually disputing The Hill's claim, you are simply inserting your personal POV. call it whatever bullshit you want, but your attempts to change "leaves little doubt" to "might possibly perhaps have a sliver of truth to it" comes from no one but yourself and is therefore your personal POV. FuelWagon 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Assertions
Hbomb, since you're so happy to water down facts with weaker language like "so and so asserts", I figure the only way to keep it balanced is to do the same for the republican side. Don't want any assertions to get presented as undisputed facts. FuelWagon 13:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, I agree that some of the previous changes, such as labeling the ABA’s rating as “opined”, were clearly over the top. However, it looks like the 'Support' portion of the article was already full of ‘assert’ qualifiers. You changed one instance of ‘The Republican position is that’ to ‘Republicans’s assert’, changed three instances of ‘argue’ to ‘assert’, and changed two instances of ‘contend’ to assert, in addition to adding two new instances of ‘Republicans assert’.  The word assert already appeared four times in this section without your changes.  ‘Contend’ and ‘argue’ are both listed as synonyms of assert here - http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=assert-.  Except for the two new instances of ‘Republicans assert’, I think the writing was better varied before these changes. --Jperlin 20:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know they are synonymous in their denotation. It's their connotation that is different. "Assert" has a much weaker connotation than any other possibility, and hbomb consistently sprinkles "democrats assert" in the article to weaken the view that opposes his POV. He doesn't seem to get this, so I thought a little demonstration might educate him. It's either that, or we go through a revert war for the next several weeks putting in and taking out his "democrats assert" crap. FuelWagon 21:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about this: I think it makes the most sense, and best reading, to state at the top of both the 'Opposition' and 'Support' sections 'Opponents/Supporters maintain the following positions:' followed by a bulleted list without any further qualifications necessary.  I will make this change; update as you see fit. --Jperlin 23:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I have changed the article as described above. If you find any remaining 'assertions' in either category, please remove.  I moved the 'Uncontested nominations' and 'Legitimacy of filibustering judicial nominees' out of the 'Opposition' category; as suggestion earlier these should probably be nuetral categories.  Any points that don't belong here can go under 'Opposition'. What are your thoughts? --Jperlin 23:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Following the next logical step, I have moved "Contested nominations" out of the "Opposition" category as well, since (a) the merits of the particular judges who have been nominated are debatable, and (b) if the "nuclear option" fight is really about principle, then a discussion of the judges whose nominations will trigger the detonation is collateral to an analysis of the legal and historical merits of the nuclear option itself. Hbomb1947 07:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed some bullets that seemed to be in some odd places. FuelWagon 13:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps descriptions of some or all of the other filibustered judges should be added to the "Contested nominations" section as well. Hbomb1947 15:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Uncontested nominations
I changed this heading to "Attempts at compromise," as I feel it more accurately reflects the content of the section (none of the nominations was truly "uncontested," as they were all filibustered at some point). I'm also the guy who added discussion of the Republican offer, and of the Republican objections to the Democrats' offer (I apologize, I keep forgetting to log in; I didn't mean to be anonymous). I certainly encourage anyone to add Democrats' objections to Frist's offer. Hbomb1947 15:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Opposition Rewrite
I've tightened up the Democrat's opposition to the nuclear option. I think it now contains all the points against the nuclear option. Some folks have attempted to take stuff out of the opposition section in an attempt to water it down. If you want duplicate sections, fine. But don't try to gut the opposition argument on the grounds of "balance". FuelWagon 18:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Vast Majority equals 6 out of 200
this diff is friggen hilarious. Is that you Hbomb? You're telling me that a "vast majority" is a neutral way of saying 6 out of 220 nominees? Funny stuff. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Tampering.
It appears as though there has been some tampering with this article... does anyone have the former article saved? Captain Scotch 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice
Great job on this timely article! I learned a lot and am a bit annoyed by the major news outlets for letting each side blather on without checking the factual accuracy of what the partisans are saying. --mav 14:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Non neutral POV in "Support" section
Whoever edited the page recently horribly slanted the page. The article says flat out that "[t]his standard [i.e. 60 votes for a nomination] has no historical basis." Democrats would argue that's simply untrue. The very first justice filibustered was in fact filibustered by Republicans. The article also attempts to portray the filibuster as unconstitutional, which is untrue. A filibuster of a justice is entirely within the Constitution because the Senate is given the power to set its own rules (and a filibuster of a justice clearly falls within these rules. The whole debate here is about changing those rules). There is a factual inaccuracy in that the article now claims "[t]here are three nominees whom some Republicans discussed filibustering, but it is unclear whether this was a failed filibuster or merely a threatened filibuster." This is factually wrong. The Republicans did, in fact, filibuster Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000.

There is also the issue of biased outside sources. Sens. Hutchinson (R-TX), Frist (R-TN), and Cornyn (R-TX) had websites cited as sources for "impartial" information. Liberals and Democrats would also argue The Washington Times and Wall Street Journal Editorial Page are not acceptable sources for information.

Since there is extremely clear slant, I think a non-neutral POV sticker should be put up ASAP.


 * This is in the support section and clearly labeled as a Republican viewpoint- "The main Republican arguments are as follows, in order of significance:" --Jperlin 21:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, being in the "republican viewpoint" section does not allows factual errors. if republicans did filibuster Paez and Berzon in 2000, then is should not be reported "it is not clear if ...". I don't know the history, so I can't say either way. If anyone has a URL to clarify this "not clear" statement, the article should be fixed. FuelWagon 21:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of dividing the article into support and opposition sections is to state both positions without excessive disclaimers. Obviously, blatant lies should not be included, but both sides consider the other to be telling 'factual errors'.  The Republican position can be right or wrong, as long as it is clearly labeled as a Republican viewpoint, prefacing it with ‘it is argued that’ is redundant.  The dispute or contrary viewpoint can be included in the opposing section.  The other alternative is to break down the article by issue and put both positions on each issue side by side.  Otherwise we are back to countless “assert”s since this will need to go into every bullet point in the support and oppose section.  I consider “George W. Bush has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any President in the past 25 years,” referencing a DNC press release, to be incorrect, but it is labeled as an opposing viewpoint so it is acceptable.  Really, I don't really mind the disclaimers, it just seems redundant.  Is there another way to make it more clear the entire support and opposition sections represent POV arguments? --Jperlin 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think I misunderstood. "The Republicans did, in fact, filibuster Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000."  I agree, of course, that if this is in fact true then "it is unclear whether this was a failed filibuster or merely a threatened filibuster" should be removed.  Does anyone have a reference indicating such, which would overrule the references in the article? This link shows only one cloture attempt was made for Paez, and it was successful, as far as I can understand the document. --Jperlin 22:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I get what WRD was saying. Republicans filibustered some nominees and Democrats got enough votes to stop their filibustering. The republican version of this is that it was simply a "threatened" filibuster, but that changes the definition of filibuster from "talking to delay a vote" to "talking to delay a vote, and not getting cloture to stop the talking". At least, I think that's what WRD was getting at. I left the republican viewpoint intact but tried to clarify the Democrat counter-view to this. I think this is a borderline case of a viewpoint becoming non-factual. Saying they didn't filibuster is different from filibustering and getting stopped by cloture. FuelWagon 23:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ugh, reverted 'WRD's unilateral edit and put what I believe to be a fair summary in place. --Jperlin 22:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I edited the page to reflect accurate information. The phrasing about the Republican filibuster that "may or may not have happened" had to go because it was factually incorrect.  There was another error, down the page, which stated Bill Frist was the first one to use the term "Nuclear option" than cited an article where it was clear that Trent Lott was the first one to use it.  FYI it was Lott and not First who coined the term.  The other edits were an (poor) attempt to correct inaccuracies in the article.  I'm sorry if this caused problems and I realize now it was a bad idea.  Personally I think the whole idea of summarizing the position of each side is bad.  That said, there is still an inaccuracy in the article.  As it reads now: "There are three nominees whom some Republicans discussed filibustering, but Republicans argue that this was merely a threatened filibuster, as these nominees did eventually get a vote."  The idea that Republicans merely "discussed filibustering" the nominees is false!  This incorrectly implies that Republicans did not filibuster these nominees when they did.  Frist himself even voted against cloture on at least one of them.  This needs to be changed OR a neutrality dispute banner has to be put up. --WRD 00:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't have a problem with the Republicans presenting their strongest arguments, but I don't like the article saying they "discussed" a filibuster. They filibustered and the democrats got enough votes to get cloture and stop them. Calling it "discussed" is a bit too Orwellian Ministry of Truth for my blood. I put the "redefining of the term" in the democrats counter right after it, but, I'm not sure if wikipedia should state it as fact. The republican viewpoint could be expressed that way if it were to quote a republican involved in the situation, such as a republican senator or someone similar. But to say "republicans discussed a filibuster" is highly questionable. FuelWagon 01:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I see your point. I agree that summarizing the points of each side in a seperate section is looking less and less like a viable model. If someone wants to change it, I won't complain.  As for the Paez issue, let's work out an NPOV, factually accurate phrasing here, then move the bullet point out of support into a seperate section that discusses Paez and Abe Fortas as 'Possible precedents' or something.  My proposal- "There are three nominees whose confirmation was delayed by 14 Republican Senators, which Democrats point to as an example of Republicans filibustering judicial nominees.  Republicans argue that this was not a filibuster since these nominees did eventually get a vote(PDF file).  Bill Frist stated '(Voting against cloture) to get more information is legitimate.  But not to kill nominees.'  Democrats counter that cloture was only achieved because Republicans couldn't get the votes to overcome it--i.e. the filibuster was successfully blocked.  They also point out that the delay meets every definition of the word filibuster  and that a Press Release by the opposing Republicans referred explicitly to the vote against cloture as 'an effort to block' the nomination.  --Jperlin 05:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Honestly I think the best way to deal with Paez issue is to drop his name from the Republican section and add it as a counterpoint in the Democratic section. But no matter what we do, the current phrasing is misleading.--WRD 12:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with separate sections, and it seems to be a good way to allow both sides to present their strongest arguments without editors stepping on each other's toes. FuelWagon 13:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Supermajority changed to three-fifths majority
The senate rules never use the term "super majority". I don't know where the term came from, but the article should use the vocabulary of the rules it is discussing, rather than inventing new terms. Also, "supermajority" sounds POV to me, hinting that it would require superhuman strength to overcome a filibuster, when a three-fifths vote is actually smaller than the standard two-thirds majority. FuelWagon 20:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Supermajority is the commonly accepted, though non-legal, term. . You can change it to the factual "three-fifths majority," but change every instance if you change it. --Jperlin 20:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * All instances changed. Three-fifths is also more accurate, since "supermajority" could mean two-thirds, three-fifths, or even three-fourths votes. FuelWagon 21:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Parliamentarian... who is he? How will they get around him?
If anyone wants they can put more up on this fellow: Alan Frumin. He was appointed by Trent Lott when Lott was the majority leader... And, new rumors suggest that they may ignore his advice. See, I think you don't have to ask the Parliamentarian for his advice... and if you do ask, you can just as easily ignore him. They may have Cheney ignore Alan Frumin and just vote nuclear anyway. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4183.html  talks about it a bit. ~

Speaking as a professional parliamentarian, I'll note that the parliamentarian has no authority to issue rulings and the presiding officer is free to not seek and/or ignore his advice. Frumin's wrong anyway. User-65.188.37.1


 * 65.188.37.1 is correct. A parliamentarian is nice to have around to keep everyone happy on the minor day to day issues that crop up on the spot, so no one feels the chair is acting unfairly and the rulings are somewhat correct and consistent. But on the big issues, like the nuclear option, the parties have had the time to research and ask outside opinions, and ultimately it is the chair that makes the decision subject only to being overruled by the members themselves. Think of the Senate parliamentarian like your family doctor: he is great for the common ills you encounter, but when you contract a serious medical condition, you ignore your family doctor and go to the specialist in that disease. NoSeptember 21:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

'was only rated as "qualified" by the American Bar Association rather than "well-qualified"'
I'm wondering what this little tidbit has to do with the poll being cited. The poll question simply asked if people believed that "well qualified" nominees should get votes, not "well-qualified according to the ABA". As I understand it, the ABA associating employs a ranking system, with "well qualified" being the top, "qualified" being below that, etc. That's really unrelated to the poll question in any way except for the choice of terms.

Removed it once and was reverted, so thought I'd elaborate here.

--JohnM 05:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For some people following American politics, saying a judicial candidate is "well qualified" implies an ABA rating, just as a survey asking if R-rated films should be shown uncut on television would be understood to imply the Motion Picture Association of America rating system. True, the ABA rating system is not as well known as the MPAA's, but using the term "well qulalifed" without making that clear is a defect of the poll. Also the vast majority of candidates rated by the ABA get a "well qualified." A rating of "qualified" is about as negative as the ABA ever gets. Democrats would argue that a "well qualified" rating from the ABA is a minimum requirement for evaluating judges and the poll was deliberately misleading. --agr 10:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * John, first off, it's a push poll we're talking about, with a severely leading question, so it is only with gritted teeth that I don't cut it from the article entirely. Second, the question specifically uses the subjective term "well qualified", which immediately begs the question "well-qualified according to whom?" Pat Robertson? George Bush? Frist? If well qualified nominees should get a vote and if "well qualified" is defined by the president, then the senate is a useless bit of deadweight in the process. Democratic blocking of a nominee can be taken to mean that the nominee is not considered "well qualified" by Democrats. The only other semi-independent source is the ABA, who can weigh in as "expert testimony", at which point, their opinion can be noted the same way a doctor's opinion has weight. I say the ABA opinion is the only thing there is to any sort of professional/neutral opinion. FuelWagon 13:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Arnold, " A rating of "qualified" is about as negative as the ABA ever gets." That is information I did not know. Does the ABA basically give only two ratings: qualified or well-qualified? Are there levels above well-qualified? or is that pretty much it? Would you have a URL we could cite in the article? FuelWagon 13:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There are three ABA ratings "well qualified", "qualified", and "not qualified." (There used to be an "exceptionally well qualified" years ago.) The ABA also indicates whether the opinion was unanimous, by a substantial majority or by just a majority. See the Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association web site. At that site there are lists of rankings for the last 10 Congresses. Most of the ratings are WQ with a substantial number of Q's. A majority rating of NQ was unheard of until very recently. Also see http://www.abanet.org/barserv/nominees.html which discusses the fact the Bush has stopped asking for ABA ratings of prospective nominees, a practice started by President Eisenhower.

Time to trim?
In light of the compromise, it might be time to trim this article some. I'd suggest cutting the Republican oppposition and protest sections down to a sentence or two for starters. --agr 11:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time believing that Frist is going to simply shrug his shoulders and say "Oh, never mind." My guess is he and the Pat Robertson types will use lobbying efforts to attempt to change some of the 7/7 senators minds. The 14 will have to hold up to that for the compromise to stand. We're basically talking about whether or not Frist can find a way to salvage his run for president in 2008. And I don't think he's just gonna roll over quietly. The other piece is this whole thing will probably re-explode as soon as Rehnquist steps down. The 700 Club wants to stuff the court with a bible thumper who will ban abortion and let them teach creationism in schools after morning prayers. THEY aren't just going to roll over on this one either, not when their leader firmly believes that a Democratic judge is worse than AlQueda, Nazis, and civil war. FuelWagon 13:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This compromise just puts off an eventual vote on the nuclear option until there is a disagreement among the 14 who made the compromise as to whether a particular nominee falls into the "extraordinary circumstances" category. That could happen at any point in the next year and a half.  NoSeptember 13:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the compromise is probably temporary, but it sets an important precedent for next time. Regardless, the article should be trimmed. I'll start working on it again. Dave (talk) 15:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Background, Vocabulary, History, and "possible consequences" need to be reorganized
Background, vocabulary, and history need to be combined and moved to the beginning and/or renamed. The "only remaining minority option" stuff is history, not consequences, and should be moved there. This is a real mess right now. Please reply rather than reverting if I change something you don't like. Thanks, Dave (talk) 16:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The latest edits have turned this article into crap, emphasizing irrelevant information and ancient history, and deemphasizing anything current and important about the nuclear option. Someone reading the article now would wonder "what's the big fuss about the nuclear option?" since everything important is cut or buried. If this is the best folks can do, I'm going to revert the whole mess. FuelWagon 16:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The backgound and history sections matter because most of the arguments on both sides are based on opposing views of Senate history (although they don't need to be at the top of the article). Without it, the debate points have no context.  All the debate points about Paez and Fortas etc. are just history too, and would have to be deleted as "ancient history" too.  This issue is being debated on historical points, which makes it relevent. NoSeptember 18:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are smoking crack if you think events in 1789 should be the first thing to bring up in the article. It needs to be written starting from current events and working backward. Senate rule changes from 1800 should be put in the ancient history section at the end. the article has become a complete piece of crap. When I get some time I'll have to fix it. FuelWagon 18:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't resort to personal attacks or revert back to the old version, which had even worse organization. There is no plausible argument for putting the necessary "vocabulary" at the end, for keeping "background" and "history" separated by 30k of text, or putting blue slips under "possible consequences. Dave (talk) 18:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The best solution may be moving some of the history stuff to the fillibuster article or to a subarticle on history of nominations or something. It makes no sense at the end. Dave (talk) 18:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current stuff should be on top, but the 1789 history is more relevent than the Fortas filibuster. If you have listened to the debate, they are not arguing much about whether the Fortas precedent matters, they are arguing about 214 years of history and the founders.  At least 50% of the material in the Support and Opposition sections could be deleted if our rule was to take out historical stuff.  In US Senate debate, the number of years since an event is less important than the impact of the event, and 1806 for example is big deal in Senate debate.  Of course, we could just ignore what the real US Senators are talking about and conduct our own debate, although that wouldn't be very encyclopedic. NoSeptember 19:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "we could just ignore what the real US Senators are talking about" I'll tell you what isn't very encyclopedic: hacking an article to the point where everything relevant is buried and defending it with the "no true scotsman" argument. FuelWagon 19:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that major changes should have been discussed first. I enjoy watching this article because it reminds me more of a thread in a discussion forum than an encyclopedia article, and it will have a short shelf life when the issue gets resolved.  I avoid editing the Support and Opposition sections because I am not trying to persuade anyone with political arguments.  I think many of the edits here are made for that purpose (on both sides of the issue) and that is unfortunate.  NPOV needs to be enforced on this article if we truly want an informative encyclopedia article. NoSeptember 19:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert over FuelWagon's revert because I don't want to get into a pointless edit war, but I'd like feedback from the other editors on which version is better. From my standpoint, the revert meant that, the article is now structured with the history in four different sections (including the "consequences" section, which is utterly incomprehensible), the necessary vocabulary at the end, supporting arguments in the "opposition" section, future tense about past events, POV rhetoric in various places, spelling and capitalization errors, a crappy intro, and several paragraphs of redundancy about moderate Republicans. This diff page shows the two versions side-by-side. Incidentally, I admit that I should have consulted before making the changes initially, but my concern now is how to best improve the article. Dave (talk) 22:17, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * alright Harry. My draft version is here. I think it keeps the focus on what's important (present events), and then pulls in the historical significance (senate tradition of filibusters), followed by support/opposition. The remaining "support" section could probably be rolled into later pieces, especially the section about Fortas. But I think the intro is short and to the point, and still focuses on what's so important about the nuclear option. The "recent history" then gives a brief rundown of what has been happening lately to cause the issue to come to a head, ending with the 14 senator compromise. The later parts can use some clean up. But I think this piece is a pretty good take on things. what do you think? FuelWagon 03:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Frists political motivations
Harry, I see you've moved this section again. The piece about Frist running for president in 2008 is currently completely absent. It seems to me that this belongs in the "opposition" section, since the argument is that the nuclear option isn't about any real problem in the Senate, but rather is about Frist trying to get the religious right to back his run for president in 2008. I originally had it in a neutral section, but a wikipedia editor who favored the nuclear option insisted it was POV, so I moved it into the support section as part of the democratic pov. I think Frist's motivations are important and should be put back in the article. FuelWagon 18:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * looks like you saw the page during the 30 seconds before I put it back in as part of the "vocabulary" section. I'm going to move that to the intro or recent history.  I would have done it by now, except I got an edit conflict with NoSeptember.  I tried to incorporate his/her edits into my edit and lost the whole thing somehow.  I'll fix it right now. Dave (talk) 18:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry 'bout that. NoSeptember 18:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's my fault for not putting up the "in use" sign.  But it was confusing as all hell redoing the edit.  I had to juggle the current version, my reverted version, and the version I had just finished and lost.  It all worked out, though.  Don't worry about it. Dave (talk) 18:40, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Byrd stuff?
I can't find a good place for this paragraph:
 * "The Constitutional option", or "The Byrd option" were also floated as terms by Republicans, the latter being meant to emphasize the claim that Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat from West Virginia) had several times changed Senate precedents via majority vote.

The Democratic Party denies this charge, arguing that Byrd only clarified and enforced existing rules. More recently, Republicans have tried to avoid the term "nuclear option" because they don't want their actions assoicated with nuclear war.

Anyone want to take a crack at it? Dave (talk) 18:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * vocabulary would seem to go towards the end. are you talking about that massive paragraph in the intro? that definitely needs to get moved. "Byrd option" and other names are not as important as what the meaning and implications are. I'd say start a section at the end titled "alternate vocabulary" or something similar. FuelWagon 19:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I still can't figure out why you think vocabulary should go at the end. Can you explain your reasoning? Dave (talk) 04:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * One other thing: I can't figure out why you think that arguments made by Pat Robertson in favor of the nuclear option should go in the opposition section. You keep moving it there.  Dave (talk) 04:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Vocabulary isn't nearly as important as the effects of the nuclear option. And attempts to change it from the nuclear option to any other term have failed. The only folks who call it the constitutional option are the folks wanting to push the button. I think its far more important to focus on the effects rather than the name. As for the Pat Robertson stuff, I put it in its own bullet with Frist political motivation. If Frist is doing this as a way to court the religious right to back him in 2008, then that ought to be backed up by showing what various religious right groups have done to lobby for the nuclear option. That Frist was on "justice sunday" seems to indicate to me that this is about satisfying the religious right's desire to pack the courts, not about democratic senators being "obstructionists". I only put it in the opposition section before because a pro-nuclear editor called it POV so I moved it to the opposition pov. It should be in its own section now, before support/opposition. FuelWagon 05:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

strive for simplicity
Fuelwagon, it's not deemphasizing the effect on the Supreme Court to take out "directly impact." For one thing, the use of two verbs suggests that there are somehow different effects on each kind of nominee, which is not the case. For another, it makes the sentence read more quickly, allowing the reader to get to the point: that Rehnquist may soon step down. Bbpen 19:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. I removed the lead in about the other types of judges. This simplifies the sentence greatly and gets straight to teh point that Rehnquist may step down soon. FuelWagon 20:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Now you've removed the only mention in the article that there are two types of federal judgeships at issue, not counting SCOTUS. You've also used four words -- "have a direct impact on" -- instead of the more direct "affect". I think you're too worried that people will somehow miss the import. Bbpen 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Bbpen, I don't know why you insist on changing that paragraph, but this one at least works for me. FuelWagon 23:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, great. Now let's work on the second sentence of the paragraph to deemphasize Rehnquist's illness and emphasize its consequences -- you should love that. Bbpen 00:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. FuelWagon 00:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now, let's improve the flow of the second sentence of the piece: put the purpose first ("prevent a confirmation vote"), followed by the means ("staging a filibuster"), followed by the key characteristic of the means ("requires a 3/5 majority to break"). This construction also avoids the repetition of "filibuster" and "the rules" in a sentence, and "cloture" in the paragraph. Bbpen 01:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Bbpen, don't mark your modifications as "minor edit" unless you're fixing typos or something equally benign. FuelWagon 02:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, forgot to untick the checkbox. Don't forget to describe your edits in the edit summary box. Bbpen 02:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion forum for negotiation of NPOV edits to trouble-spots
While the article as a whole reads as reasonably NPOV, there are individual statements that are still worded in ways that feel like they're advocating a point of view.

An example: "Conveniently, Republicans currently hold 55 of 100 seats in the Senate, and Democrats claim the nuclear option is an attempt by Senate Republicans to hand confirmation power to themselves."

While the assertion on the back half of the sentence is attributed to the Democrats, the word "conveniently" at the head of the sentence comes across as POV in favor of the Democratic position.

Tried the following adjustment: "In 2005, Republicans hold the presidency and 55 of 100 seats in the Senate, so Democrats assert that the nuclear option is an attempt to allow approval of judges who cannot gain bipartisan support due to ideological issues." but got dinged (perhaps validly) by Fuelwagon for watering down the criticism. Latest pass is this: "Republicans currently hold 55 of 100 seats in the Senate, and Democrats assert that the nuclear option is an attempt by Senate Republicans to consolidate confirmation power to a single party, eliminating a long-standing check in the system." Additional suggestions?

It's worth being clear, both for NPOV and to make clear the potential long-term costs of the nuclear option, that elimination of the filibuster weakens the minority party position regardless of which party that is. If / when the Senate again reverses dominance, Republicans will suffer the same reduction in power and won't have sufficient votes to force the filibuster back into play.

Another trouble-spot: "In January 2005, Dr. James C. Dobson, head of the Focus on the Family, threatened six Democratic senators if they block conservative nominees."

'Threatened' feels POV without details to back it up. In a vacuum it sounds like he threatened bodily harm to the senators. Tried: "In January 2005, Dr. James C. Dobson, head of the Focus on the Family, promised "a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea" if six Democratic senators blocked conservative nominees." but got dinged by FuelWagon again. Very much open to suggestions...

--Naltrexone (talk)

Percentages of Judicial Nominees Confirmed
In trying to find better sourcing for the "highest success rate in the past 25 years" assertion in the article, it appears that it's VERY hard to find mainstream news sources doing apples to apples comparisons on these metrics. I'll post the details in a bit, but it's probably worth breaking the comparisons of percentages out into their own section to clarify what they are and what they mean. Many articles play games with the time frames, types of judicial nominations (appellate versus non-appellate versus total), nominees versus nominations (thus counting single nominees multiple times), and even more bizarre contortions involving "returned" nominations. Anyone have good sources? --Naltrexone (talk)

60% requirement
Two things: Which of these strike you as factually incorrect, FuelWagon, which I presume was why you previously reverted these edits? Simon Dodd 15:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Added a note that both supporters and opponents claim that the nuclear option would allow a simple majority to confirm judges. Opponents object that a simple majority should not be enough to confirm a judge; proponents claim that it should be. Both sides agree, however, that the nuclear option is about creating a simple majority vote for judges - the argument is, nominally, over whether that's a good idea or not.
 * Removed the comment that 50 Republican Senators plus the vice president could confirm a judge. Any senator's vote is worth as much as any other Senator's vote, thus any fifty Senators - drawn from either party - plus the vice president could confirm a judge in a post-nuclear option Senate.
 * Incidentally, the very next paragraph reminds the reader of the balance of power: "Currently, Republicans hold 55 of 100 seats in the Senate and the Vice Presidency"; using factually correct language to point out that any fifty Senators will do (for example, were Zell Miller still in the Senate, he would not be a Republican, but he would still count as a vote for a Judge; the Vermont Independent is no longer a Republican, but his vote for one of the Judges would still count as a vote for a Judge; one senator's vote is worth one vote, regardless of party orientation, and sometimes the split is NOT down party lines) is hardly misleading as to the balance of power in the Senate at this time.Simon Dodd 16:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you living in fantasy land? Do we simply ignore the fact that we're talking about a republican president trying to get judges nominated by 50 republican senators? Is that not fact? FuelWagon 16:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't a fact. It's a fact that we're talking about a Republican President trying to get judges nominated. Right now, any 60 will do. If the nuclear option was implemented, any 50 would do. So no, it isn't a fact that 50 Republican Senators are needed. A better line of questioning would be: is it not a fact that, should the Nuclear Option be successfull, the votes of fifty Senators - drawn from either party - would be sufficient to confirm a Judge? Is it not a fact that each Senator's vote is worth one vote? Is it not a fact that a Democrat's - or independent's - vote for a Judicial nominee is as powerfull as a Republican's? Is it not a fact that not every vote that the Senate takes splits strictly down party lines? Is it not a fact that some Democratic Senators have voted for some of the President's nominees? Is it not a fact that some Republicans have voted against some of the President's nominees? You are being selective with your facts to support your POV, as you have repeatedly done throughout this article's edit history. This article has been submitted to Wikipedia:Third_opinion. I also suggest that you read the Three revert rule before reverting these changes again. This is an innocuous and factually correct edit.Simon Dodd 17:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is also a fact that the 60% majority section is for the opponents point of view and the 50% majority section is for the point of view of people supporting the nuclear option. The people opposing the nuclear option aren't simply opposing it in theory, they are opposing it now, as in Bush nominating a judge that only Republicans vote for. Owens was confirmed along party lines with only 4 party crossovers (2 republicans voted against her. 2 democrats voted for her). The FACT that only 4 senators out of 100 broke with party lines says this is a partisan ploy, not some "anyone might vote anyway" issue. FuelWagon 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * None of which is relevant. If anything, the fact that 4 Senators broke party lines only goes to underscore my previous point (i.e., that the party of a Senator supporting a nominee is of marginal relevance, given that any Senator's vote for the nominee is worth the same as any other's). The bottom line is: your version is factually accurate and implicitly misleading because of your POV; my version of the text is factually accurate full stop. Which, if any, of the word changes I've introduced do you contend renders the section factually inaccurate? The next time you revert this, you will be reported under the Three revert rule, and if I'd noticed your previous revert last week, you would already have been. Your edit is not fact-based, and is intended only to further your POV. Cease and desist.Simon Dodd 19:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "The next time you revert this, you will be reported under the Three revert rule" Don't get all high and mighty on me now, I count FOUR reverts from you    You're weakening the opposition point of view by combining two separate but very different reasons for opposing the nuclear option. There are two points of view that oppose the nuclear option, the ones who see this specifically as a Republican power grab and the ones who want broader support of nominees in the senate regardless of Party. You are oversimplifying the opposition POV and therefore weakening it. Democrats like Gore view it as a Republican "Power grab". Republicans like McCain view it as breaking with senate tradition of requiring broad support for nominees regardless of party affiliation. So, one point of view sees it specifically about republicans and one sees it more about broad support. But BOTH views oppose it. And your attempt to glob both views together into one opposition view WEAKENS them. FuelWagon 20:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My reverts are correcting an unsupportable and unjustified series of reverts made by yourself. You have made no serious effort to justify the removal on these pages, and can therefore consider yourself reported under 3RR.
 * Fine, same to you jerkoffFuelWagon 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In case you have a problem, here is the sentence you insist is POV. The two opposition POVS are highlighted. FuelWagon 20:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than require the President to nominate Judges who get broad support from both parties in the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators), opponents claim the nuclear option would allow the President to nominate partisan Judges supported only by 50 Republican SenatorsFuelWagon 20:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And you'll note that I'm not removing broad support from both parties; I'm merely correcting your incorrect assertion that "the nuclear option would allow the President to nominate partisan Judges supported only by 50 Republican Senators". The nuclear option would allow the President to nominate Judges supported by 50 Senators, and whether those fifty included only Republicans or a few Democrats also is irrelevant. Each senator's vote counts for one, and as you yourself have pointed out, the parties do NOT always vote down the party line. 50 senators of EITTHER party. That's a fact, and unless you can show otherwise, your insistence on removing it is unsuportable.Simon Dodd 20:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How right-wing are you, out of curiosity? Are you a pat buchanan type? just wondering. The interesting part of teh sentence that you conveniently ignored in your bulldog approach above is this: ooppoents claim. You see, this is the opponents point of view. some opponents dont like the nuclear option because they are democrat and because the nuclear option would allow Bush to nominate a judge who could get confirmed by 50 Republican senators. That is fact. That is the Point Of View of some who oppose the nuclear option. And you weaken it by hiding behind a broader "fact" that the party of the senator doesn't matter. Well, it doesn't matter to YOU, maybe, but there are people who specifically opposed the nuclear option BECAUSE it would allow Republicans to confirm a judge. You want to argue facts and WIPE OUT one major point of view for opposing the nuclear option: the point of view of DEMOCRATS that oppose the nuclear option SPECIFICALLY because it will allow REPUBLICANS to confirm judges. YOU ARE DELETING A DEMOCRAT POINT OF VIEW AND HIDING IT BEHIND YOUR VERSION OF FACTS. FuelWagon 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Republican or not
FuelWagon and Simon are currently both blocked for 3RR because of the addition and removal of the word "Republican." I'd normally have protected the page instead of blocking, but as one of you reported the other, and he was blocked, the other violator had to be blocked too, as we have to handle these things equitably. So that it doesn't start up again, please get hold of a source that will help you decide what's correct. In the sentence: "Rather than require the President to nominate Judges who get broad support from both parties in the Senate ... opponents claim the nuclear option would allow the President to nominate partisan Judges supported only by 50 Republican Senators plus the Vice President": it seems to me that the word "Republican" should not be there, because any 50 senators would do, whether or not, as a matter of fact, they would tend to be Republican. If that's wrong, FuelWagon should probably produce a source showing that the word "Republican" should be there. Bear in mind that we're not allowed to add our own arguments, analysis, or opinions: see No original research. I hope this helps some. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I told Simon here that this is language from Al Gore. I've now added a URL to his speech in the 60% section. And I embedded a note in that section which contains some excerpts from that speech to show these are his words, his tone, his point of view, his reasoning for opposing the nuclear option. If this is insufficient, we can beat a dead horse, and I'll dig around for some more quotes tomorrow. But my point being that this is a basic position of many democratic leaders opposing the nuclear option. FuelWagon 04:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose the following compromise language: "opponents claim the nuclear option would allow the President to nominate Judges supported by only 50 Senators plus the Vice President." This ignores one part of my objection (viz., that both supporters and opponents both agree on the effect), but has at least the virtue of being factually correct (i.e., that 50 Senators of either party could confirm a judge). Are there objections to this? Simon Dodd 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * N.b., I have replaced the SectNPOV label, as this issue is clearly not yet resolved, and it seems appropriate to so label it. Nor does your quote from Al Gore's speech change the facts; if you have a direct quote from Al Gore, why not place it in the main text, in full quotation marks, and appropriately accredit the remark to Al Gore? Simon Dodd 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Apropos. I have re-written the text such that it is factually correct, and includes FuelWagon's much-cherished Al Gore's quote, to make it clear that it is "his words, his tone, his point of view, his reasoning for opposing the nuclear option". Simon Dodd 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 60% section was short, to the point, and represented the point of view of democrats such as Al Gore who view this as a republican power grab. Thank you for making it long winded, rambling, and still weaker than the original. At least you're consistent. What you're basically demanding now is that this point of view can only be verbatim quotes and paraphrasing is not allowed. I'm pretty sure that is NOT a wikipedia requirement. You are enforcing your own rules at this point. FuelWagon 17:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Just so we're all clear, then: there is no modification to the language in the 60% section acceptable to you; you will continue to revert any changes? You are not willing to compromise in the slightest on the language? Is the next step to be arbitration?Simon Dodd 18:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be a bifurcation, in case you're wondering. The thing is that you've already conceded that the text represents the view of opponents such as Al Gore and you used that as an excuse to rewrite the section, insert a bunch of Gore's quotes, and weaken it. Now you're attempting to bifurcate the issue and present it in the form of "I won't allow ANY modifications". No. You attempted to rewrite wikipedia rules, use it as an excuse to weaken the section, and I took your changes out because of that. Your edits haven't made this section better, they've made the opposition position weaker. As long as you continue to weaken that section, invent new wikipedia rules, bifurcate on the talk page, and the like, yeah, I expect I'll be reverting your edits. If there is something about that section that is factually inaccurate, I don't have a problem changing it. But it appears to concisely represent a major opposition viewpoint. FuelWagon 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * FW: "If there is something about that section that is factually inaccurate, I don't have a problem changing it". What I keep trying to explain to you is that it IS factually inaccurate to say that it matters which party a Senator is from in counting what their vote is worth. The nuclear option is about 50 Senators drawn from either party being able to confirm a President's nominees. Your theory does not take into account the longer-term implications (which is precisely ) and it presumes (incorrectly) that Senators do, will and must vote down the party line. Maybe you're contending that it isn't YOUR opinion that it is factually inaccurate and partisan - it's Al Gore's. Yet, when I tried to make that explicit by placing the quotation YOU provided in support of your statement into the text, you reverted it out. It seems to me that you're making Al Gore's view a sock puppet for your own. Simon Dodd 19:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You just mangled the section again. from a functional point of view, the only meaningful change you made was change "opponents" to "democrats". But in doing so, you managed to nearly double the amount of text. I kept your "opponents"->"democrats" change and reduced it down to about half the words you had. And for all your arguments about "facts", you consistently ignore the fact that opponents such as Gore and Reid and others oppose the nuclear option for the reasons given in that section. And you're attempt to insert quotes was simply you changing the rules of wikipedia for your own ends. Major Democratic leaders expressed the views in the 60% section, that is fact. And the embedded quotes are proof positive. FuelWagon 19:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I didn't know "mangled" meant "used a wording other than that preferred by FuelWagon". I was trying to insert quotes that YOU provided to back up YOUR version of why the section should say what it did. In any instance, the quotes are gone, and there is now another alternative wording proposed, along with a change in the section to make it clear that the 50% and 60% sections are intended to show two sides of the debate. I think this is helpfull, and supports your previous contention that the 60% section is supposed to be reserved for Democrat views. Why in the world it should be is beyond me, but at least now it's clear that it is. Does even this meet with your approval?Simon Dodd 20:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is another viewpoint that I think needs to be strengthend, and that is the viewpoint of the moderates, teh Gang of 14, etc. The article currently words their deal as a "compromise", but I think the moderates actually view it as a "victory". They viewed the issue in a more longer-term scope of protecting the minority, whichever party they might be in. McCain, as far as I know, never argued that this was a Republican power grab, he argued that the senate tradition of broad support from both parties is an important, central component of the design of the Senate. That it didn't matter who was in power, republican, democrat, whatever, that the minority party must be given a voice and that a bipartisan agreement is a win-win situation, not simply a "compromise". FuelWagon 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * For those concerned, I was asked to have a look at this page, and the reverts that are going on. That said, I will chide some of the more partisan voices by saying, my 16 yr old son used this very page back in the spring while working on a school paper.  Wikipedia is for them, not us.  'Nuff said.  I ask the partisans to cool their jets.  Alot of these issues can be cleared with structure and semantics.--ghost 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've asked him to cool his jets, but unfortunately, Fuel Wagon seems to believe that his policy preferences alter the voting requirements in the United States Senate. I've proposed several versions of compromise language to try to resolve this problem, and each time, he insists on reverting my fact-based language to his preferred (and partisan) text. It is becoming fairly clear that FuelWagon is determined that this article will reflect his viewpoint, only his viewpoint, and nobody else's viewpoint unless that viewpoint is....HIS viewpoint. I'm awaiting confirmation of this from him before sending it to arbitration, which is the next step. Simon Dodd 18:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You've asked me to cool my jets? I see you've modified the 60% section AGAIN. What is your problem? You reorded the sentence, but the only FUNCTIONAL difference is that you changed "opponents" to "democrat opponents". Is that what this is all about? Give me a break. Oh, and once again, you took a single sentence that concisely summed up the opposition point of view and turned it into three sentences of gobbedly gook. all to change "opponents" to "democrats". nice. FuelWagon 19:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, because you continually revert the 60% section back to YOUR version of the text, which is partisan and factually inaccurate. This is about making the text a valuable and factually accurate resource, rather than your personal mouthpiece. On what basis should your version of the text be the sole allowable version? I have proposed numerous compromise texts, any of which would be an improvement, and each time you have rejected them and simply reverted to your preferred version. At no point have you demonstrated the slightest inclination to compromise, so I fully support Ghost's suggestion of arbitration. You're being absurd. Simon Dodd 19:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * FW asked me to come here. I am one of those moderates, and I do see the "compromise" as a victory.  One that is as much for you, as me.  Now that that's out of the way, what will it take for you both to knock it off?  I think FW will if asked.  Can you say the same?  Because, if you can't, I'll stop wasting all our time and escalate it now.--ghost 18:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It will take the 60% section being non-partisan and factually accurate. I propose my previous edit as a compromise version; it's still not ideal, but it at least omits the most egregious factual errors. I fully support escalation, as the facts in this matter are clear to everyone but FW. Simon Dodd 19:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * FW, before I revert again, please explain what your objection is to making the phrasing of the 60% section run parallel to the 50% section, per your revert.Simon Dodd 19:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Simon, I'll address your concerns in two steps: 1) I'll talk to FW off-page. I'm sure that, if asked, he'll refrain from making changes except in the most extreme circumstances.  But to do that, he'll ask agree to do the same. 2) I'll personally review the sections in question, with an eye to remove partisanship of any kind.  I'm sure that if you both can ease off for 24hrs, it will reflect well on all of us.--ghost 20:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, am I the only that sees the irony in this proposal?--ghost 20:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're not the only one who sees the irony in the proposal. But I don't think FW will back off. I've just made another edit to improve the section, and although it does nothing to change the tone of the article, nothing to damage the flow of the article, and is factually correct, I suspect FW is going to revert it again, because it doesn't comport with how he wants this article to read. So then I'll propose another alternative wording, and I'm sure he will revert that again, without making any indictation in the direction of a compromise. What indication has he shown that he will "refrain from making changes"? He has not done so thusfar. After he was banned under 3rr previously, he simply returned and is doing exactly the same thing now. The first step in resolving this conflict is that FW has to be willing to allow alternative text that he didn't write, and I've seen no indication that he will accept this. Simon Dodd 20:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Have faith in your brother-editor, my friend. I think it might surprise you.  Let's give each other a few minutes to sort things out.--ghost 20:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "After he was banned under 3rr previously, he simply returned and is doing exactly the same thing now." Do you think, perhaps, it would be more informative to also report to ghost that the above sentence describes you as much as me? Or do you think casting yourself as the neutral innocent here, and ignoring the fact that you got a 3RR block the same time as me, is somehow forwarding this discussion towards a "good faith" result? I'm just curious how much you honestly view yourself as the white hat here, and how much you are consciously aware that you're trying to blow smoke up someone's backend. Your **** stinks just as much as everyone else. FuelWagon 02:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's easy: because you were in the wrong, and I was right. There were factual problems with your language, which I corrected. At no point did you manage to prove otherwise. You objected to numerous alternative and compromise versions of the text, on no basis which I can see other than that the language was no longer your preferred language. I'm waiting on Ghost's alternative version to be finished, and thusfar, his text addresses most of my concerns, using language very similar to some of my proposals. I assume you won't be reverting his edits, though, which leads me to the conclusion that your refusal to allow my edits is mindless partisanship (particularly mindless, given that both of us were opposed to the nuclear option), which has no place on Wikipedia, IMO. Simon Dodd 14:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny, the 3RR rule didn't seem to excuse your behaviour as "right" and mine as "wrong". It's clear you've painted yourself in a white hat, with a white outfit, and a white horse to boot. You're the lone ranger, riding in to save articles from partisan editors, and screw them all if they don't agree with you. Well, at least I know what kind of perfumed ***hole I'm dealing with. And no, there were no factual problems with my edits. It clearly stated the view of main opposition leaders such as Harry Reid, Al Gore, and the like. No matter how many times you say it isn't a fact, it doesn't change the truth. This is gonna be real fun, I can tell. A self-declared knight in shining armor, who can do no wrong. I better put on my hip boots, cause its getting deep in here fast. FuelWagon 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Up or down vote
For those concerned, there's a code word bounced around on this issue that has a link. Up or down vote. It's currently a stub, with a nice link to C-SPAN. Enjoy.--ghost 16:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghost pulls out a machette
Ok, sorry it took me so long to get rolling. Thank you all for giving the article space to be reviewed. I printed a hard copy (I tend to copy-edit better the old fashioned way) for the way home. The issues that have inflammed many can be narrowed and cooled thru structural changes. I'm looking to remove the heat from the flames. I'll need the rest of the editors to remove the fuel (no pun intended, FW ;-]). Please be patient, as I'll be several hours.--ghost 03:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good so far, ghost. I'll wait till you've finished before I touch the page. FuelWagon 14:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not providing a guide, explanation and summary of my edits late last night. I reached the point of physical exhustion.  I will provide those here later this morning.  Thanks for your patience.--ghost 12:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of edits--ghost 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 03:32, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost m (minor copy/edit to intro to get juices flowing)
 * Added code word (figure of speech reference in case the reader has heard, and is confused by, this term. Added 'lifetime appointment' to clarify the importance of the issue.


 * 04:07, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost (consolidating facts about the Nuke option itself; will address background next)
 * Moved the 'Senate Tradition' section to the Talk:Filibuster page. This article is about the Nuclear option, not a history of the Filibuster itself.  However, the section was very well written and contained good content that deserves to be integrated into the proper article (which is shamefully inadequate by comparison).  Brought together the rest of the details of the Nuke option together for cohesiveness.


 * 04:14, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost m (&#8594;A Change to Senate Rules - +parlimentarian's name;copy/edit)
 * Minor edit. If we mention someone as stating something, we should get their name.


 * 04:53, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost (restructuring in Timeline format)
 * The vast majoity of the redundancies in the article were able to be eliminated by restructuring things in chronological order. This allowed some biased tone to be removed.


 * 05:18, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost (working thru timeline)
 * It was taking awhile.


 * 05:47, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost (wrapping up timeline;breaktime)
 * Eyes were starting to bleed at this point.


 * 06:03, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost m (&#8594;60 Percent Majority - -table, irrelevant; moved to talk, too pretty to delete)
 * Nice table, but at minimum, it should be setup as a Template and moved off-page. But even then, it doesn't really belong.


 * 06:31, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost (&#8594;Alternative standards for consent -Ghost's edit on the 50vote/60vote hot button)
 * There aren't really supporters/critics on these items. Simply supporters of two distinct POVs.  Restated the POVs as satements about facts, with links.


 * 06:38, 22 Jun 2005 A ghost (Grouping other topics; removing a few redundancies)
 * Had to cut things short here. The rest of the topics could be grouped at this point.  However, the hack & slash machette work was pretty rough thru this section and needs clean-up.

Summary I don't claim these edits are perfect. But the read-thru I did on the 13pg hard-copy I had showed me an article that looked to have been authored by Sybil. We, the editors, need to work together to present relevant facts, not minutia, about the topic of the article. Nothing less, and nothing more. Remember, this is for the kids coming up behind us that need to be invited to explore, not brow-beaten with POV.--ghost 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ghost, this looks fine so far - there are a couple of places, though, where I'd move punctuation marks and make other minor changes. However, I don't want to violate the ceasefire agreement by editing, so could I ask unanimous consent to make a minor edit to fix those errors, under strict conditions that those edits will be reverted by yourself and/or FW if they are substantive rather than minor linguistics?Simon Dodd 14:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Simon. Didn't see the note.  I have no issues puctuation, spelling, etc.  The request for a ceasefire was more to guide to give me time to weigh in, and to help you both rebuild trust.  On content, let's review things first before taking the gloves off again, ok?--ghost 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Does that mean I should post my proposed edits here before editing the main article, or that I should go ahead and perform a minor edit? Simon Dodd 15:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, as far as "rebuilding trust" is concerned, I think that's a non-starter. FW has already indicated (above, at 14:31, 22 Jun 2005) that he's learned nothing, that he still considers himself in the right, and that he never understood why he was wrong in the first place. This process has fixed the major problem with the section, which was my intention all along, and that's what counts. Hopefully, FW will accept it coming from someone else. Simon Dodd 15:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * On minor edits, go for it. It's content and tone that the team should review.  For what it's worth, Simon, we all think we're more right than the rest of the group.  And FW wants the section fixed as bad as you do, just from a different perspective.  He and I do not agree on quite a lot, but if I fall he'll catch me.  I pray that you can one day have the same faith.  As long as we continue working on a higher ideal, we can smooth the differences.--ghost 15:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Minor edits made. From my point of view, FW wants the article to be fixed from his perspective, and that's precisely the problem. He wants the article to present HIS perspective, even when his perspective clashes with the facts, as illustrated in my point about Clarence Thomas (see below). All of my various proposed compromises - and your version of the text also - fixed the problems in his preferred text, without introducing POV. It seems to me that his "higher ideal" is making sure that the article paints those who oppose the nuclear option as evil, stupid Republicans out to destroy America (which they aren't). Personally, I think they're misreading the Constitution, but I don't think the article should make such a value judgement - it should say what the proponents believe the text says, what opponents believe the text says, place both in their historical context, end. For further examples of his intransigence, see his previous resistance to my attempts to balance his one-sided diatribe against the specific nominees in question, in which he attempted to mask POV behind a "this section discusses the minuses of the Candidates" defense. In order to have faith in our brother editors, all sides must show a willingness to compromise - must show, if you will, good faith. FW has shown neither. He's a good writer, and I value what he has to contribute - but he must learn deference, respect, and most of all, NPOV. Simon Dodd 16:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "he must learn deference, respect, and most of all, NPOV" Ya know, I'm getting really sick of you telling everyone what I must learn like you're some sort of yoda-know-it-all-master. FuelWagon 18:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And from my experience working with FW elsewhere, he wants nothing of the sort. In fact, one could copy/paste your text, swap the names, and you would be stating FW's position on your editorial stance perfectly.  Both of you are good writers, and add value.  But the next time you have a specific issue with one another, look in the mirror.  You may find the source of the issues there, rather than here.  'Nuff said.--ghost 16:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work on the minor copy/edit, btw. Thx. :-] --ghost 18:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court confirmation table
This table's rather well done. But it has little to Nuclear option itself, other than to beat the reader over the head about confirmation stats. Perhaps it would be better in the References section. Thoughts?--ghost 06:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I added this chart to Federal judicial appointment history. The 1986 vote to elevate Rehnquist to Chief Justice should be included also, and the date of his original confirmation is currently wrong in this chart. NoSeptember            08:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added this chart also, to Supreme Court of the United States, which would also seem a natural home for it. Simon Dodd 14:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I was the guy who created the original table. It backs up the opposition point of view that the vast majority of the Supreme Court were nominated nearly unanimously. Previously, the article simply mentioned that Thomas wouldn't have gotten confirmed if a 60 vote minimum was required, an argument from nuclear option supporters. When I found out the rest of the court was pretty much unanimously nominated, it seemed to balance the Thomas argument. I'd want to keep it in the article. FuelWagon 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, it also completely undercuts your argument that the nuclear option allows 50 Republican Senators to confirm a Republican president's nominee. The Thomas confirmation vote was close, yes - but it was supported by 11 Democrats and only 41 Republicans. Oops, I guess Clarence Thomas wasn't confirmed because 50 Republican Senators didn't vote for him! Sorry, Clarence, you're out! (It is a very neat table, though; kudos) Simon Dodd 15:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Simon, careful with the rhetoric. FW, I want supporting info/links for the 60vote POV.  Could we handle this with embedding links & redirects to Supreme Court history?  Kinda like I did with Filibuster history.  I'm trying to avoid reinventing the wheel for what should be a sub article, albiet a detailed one.--ghost 15:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * FW, I want supporting info/links for the 60vote POV. That would be impossible, because it is impossible to assume that because a Senator opposes a nominee that they will go so far as to vote aginst cloture, rather than simply voting against them. For example, note that Senators Snowe, Bingamen, Byrd, Carper, Chafee, Collins, Conrad, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, Liebermann, Pryor, and Nelson of Florida all voted for cloture on Judge Pryor's nomination, only to vote against his confirmation, minutes later . No 60 vote standard exists, other than that created by the need to invoke cloture on a filibuster. No filibuster, no supermajority requirement - which, of course, is the point of the nuclear option. It's possible that Justice Thomas' nomination would have been foiled by a filibuster, but none took place. Thus, no cloture vote was ever taken on Justice Thomas' nomination, and therefore it is moot whether or not there were the votes to invoke cloture on the nomination. Anything else is therefore speculation.Simon Dodd 16:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's understandable that you may've misunderstood the shorthand of that statement, because it clashes deeply with your POV. The "60vote" POV is based around the assumption that the filibuster should be availible for all Senate business.  Even is it's never used.  In that way, a filibuster becomes a sort of 'nuclear option' of it's own.  And two divergent groups are forced to come to agreement due to the MAD doctrine.  This is the POV that sees the filibuster as the last, best hope of the minority, regardless of who that might be.  If have trouble putting yourself in those shoes, that's fine.  But give them a try.  The writings of Sen. Byrd might help.  Then you could write for the enemy.--ghost 16:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

60vote pov
(splitting out this piece so it doesn't get lost) ghost wrote: "FW, I want supporting info/links for the 60vote POV." Uhm, there were two links and 5 or 6 embedded quotes from Al Gore and Harry Reid in the 60 percent majority section. FuelWagon 18:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My bad. I'll get 'em back in as links supporting statements about fact.  Thanks for pointing out what I did in a haze....--ghost 18:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Took a whack at it. What's your thoughts?--ghost 19:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's looking pretty rough. Since the table has been removed, I rewrote the information in sentence form and turned it into paragraph 3. But it now feels really disjointed from the first two paragraphs. Bringing in the quotes makes it feel choppy. I don't understand this insistance with quotes. I don't think the 50% majority even has a single quote in it. But Simon Dodd's obsession with the 60% section keeps pushing for quotes for the pieces he disagrees with. The rules of wikipedia do not demand quotes for every word in an article, but Dodd's bulldog behaviour is pushing the article to be that way for pieces he doesn't like or he'll throw a tantrum. I'll let you finish your rewrite before I think about doing anything. FuelWagon 20:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite my alleged bulldog tendencies, I have no such obsession. My intention was to correct the factual inaccuracies in your text, and the current version of the text supplied by Ghost does so. The only reason I was insisting on quotes was that you justified the factual inaccuracy in your text on the grounds that it wasn't a statement of fact, but rather, it was supposed to represent the opposition point of view, and thus providing quotes would have made explicit that these were not statements of fact, but statements of opinion by participants and relevant observers in the debate. Absent the inaccuracies, void the need for quotes. I really would be interested, by the way, to know what exactly you think is the difference between the various texts I proposed and the version written by Ghost, and why the latter is acceptable to you and the former weren't.Simon Dodd 20:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "why the latter is acceptable to you and the former weren't." Are you going to bifurcate every sodding topic we talk about here? The difference I see is the editor behind the edits. Whether I find ghost's edits "acceptable" or not, he hasn't tried to box me in with assinine "either/or" questions like you do on a consistent basis. FuelWagon 21:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that Ghost can write:
 * "The nuclear option would permit a simple majority of Senators, plus the Vice President, to confirm a Judge, as opposed to requiring the President to nominate judges supported by a broader majority, i.e. 60 out of 100 Senators. Supporters of the 60 percent standard claim that the nuclear option would allow a President to nominate partisan (or otherwise unacceptable) judges",


 * but, I can't write:
 * "the nuclear option would permit a simple majority of Senators, plus the Vice President, to confirm a judge. Such opponents claim that the nuclear option would allow a President to nominate partisan or otherwise unacceptable Judges with the support of only a bare majority, rather than requiring the President to nominate Judges supported by a broader majority, i.e. 60 out of 100 Senators.".


 * These passages are functionally identical. They say exactly the same thing. I fail to see any difference - and unless you can show otherwise, I'd concede gracefully if I were you - other than the word order which would sustain your charge of bifurcation, which, to have any validity, would require there to be some sort of difference between my text, which you rejected, and the text from Ghost, which you accepted. The sole different, it seems to me, is that you don't like me, and you don't like the text being anything other than your version, but now you're stuck, since you can hardly repudiate Ghost's version, having invited him to review the article in the first place. Simon Dodd 21:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In point of fact, when you factor out the sections of the passages quoted above that are IDENTICAL, here's what you're left with from each: "as opposed to Supporters of the 60 percent standard" in ghost's, and "Such opponents with the support of only a bare majority" in mine. Remind me again, what was your objection? Was it the term "bare majority" which troubled you, or did you feel that, absent the phrase "60 percent standard", my text may as well have said "F**k the Democrats"? Simon Dodd 21:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop it. You're goading an editor by argueing minutia.  Besides, I think I've got a solid compromise.  Remember what Rafiki (the monkey medicine-man in Lion King) said after smacking Simba on the head, "What does it matter?  It's in the past."--ghost 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "So what you're saying is" Hey, asshole, that's only the third or fourth time today that you've attempted to put your version of mangled reality in my mouth. first of all, I NEVER said ghost's edits were "acceptable" or not. If you could fucking read, the first line of my post says his edits on that paragraph "look pretty rough" and "feels really disjointed". That isn't anywhere near what I would call "acceptable". Where the fuck you came up with the word "acceptable" is beyond me. I tried pointing out that you bifurcated the issue into accept/no-accept. But rather than back off even a bit, you gotta beat that dead fucking horse, don't you? So now you're laying into me with yet another loaded question that somehow "I'm SAYING" ghost can write (blah) but you cant write (blah). Where the fuck do you see those words in my post? You're making shit up completely out of thin are, acting like I said it, and then trying to start a fucking fight with me about it. What the fuck is your problem? FuelWagon 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EUREKA!!! If only I read my U.S. History more often. The Connecticut Compromise is the neutral link we were looking for to summarize filibuster supporter's reasons for claiming to defend the rights of the minority. I retitled both sections, and I think it flows better.--ghost 21:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There was no cloture requirement before 1917, so to talk about "requiring 100% support for cloture" is wrong.
 * To link the Conn. Comp. to the filibuster which started in 1806 is a stretch. For 17 years (1789-1806) there was no filibuster and only a simple majority required to bring the question to a vote, and the signers of the Constitution served in large numbers in the 1789-1806 period without trying to link the filibuster and the Conn. Comp.
 * This linkage is being attributed to the filibuster's supporters, but it seems to be a linkage you yourself made, not any Senator or involved interest group.  NoSeptember            21:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine. Fix it. I was editing the text of others, but you're right, it's incorrect.
 * I respectfully disagree. The Connecticut Compromise established precedent for one of the two houses (the Senate) of the legislature to defend views of the minority population.  Precedent is not a stretch.
 * Yes and no. Senators and supporters of the filibuster point to precedent and tradition.  The 5 states that locked up(sic:filibustered, but there wasn't a name for it then) the Congressional Congress set just such a precendent.  If you must have a link, I'll put my faith in Google everytime. But do you seriously contend that what may be a valid compromise should be yanked because it might, maybe be Original research?  If so, give us a better example.--ghost 22:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Conn. Comp. is fine to be included as an example of protecting minorities (although small states and minority parties are not the same thing). The precedent for the filibuster was established in 1806, not in the constitution. So the Conn. Comp. as an example of the concept of minority rights, fine.. as a precedent, no. I appreciate the major revisions you have been doing, please understand that any major revision will carry with it some errors that need to be ironed out. Have patience, you are on the right track. NoSeptember           22:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I can agree with point 2. The Philadelphia Convention modified Madison's Virginia Plan to provide "per-state" representation in the Senate rather than "per head of population", in response to the fears of the smaller states (or, more specifically, their governments) that they would be absorbed into a national government and cease to exist as independent entities. The plan, which was Sherman of CT's, was intended to preserve the concept of a league of confederated free states, rather than to ensure the fair treatment of a minority of the population. See, Barbash, The Founding at 63-114.Simon Dodd 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is why I respectfully disagree. “. . . [U]nrestricted debate in the Senate is the only check upon presidential and party autocracy. The devices that the framers of the Constitution so meticulously set up would be ineffective without the safeguard of senatorial minority action.”--The American Senate, Lindsay Rogers, Alfred A. Knopf, 1926 . Maybe we want to hedge out language on this, but the underlying concept of the filibuster as the last bastion of minority rights in the Senate holds up.--ghost 09:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That volume is Currently unavailable - just about anywhere, it seems: . I will see if I can find it in the next few weeks to corroborate and contextualize that quote. In the meantime, I certainly agree that the filibuster is a device for ensuring the minority is heard in the Senate, but I don't agree that the checks and balances created by the framers are "ineffective without the safeguard of senatorial minority action", for four reasons.


 * Firstly, Common wisdom holds that the framers did not anticipate the arisal of political parties (they also believed that, subsequent to Washington's departure from the Presidency, the electoral college would never again be able to choose a candidate, meaning the House would invariably select the President, which is possibly the only reason the convention agreed to having the College in the first place. Barbash, supra, at 183. So much for the omniscent framers!), so the suggestion they designed the Constitution to accomodate this is unlikely. Secondly, my understanding is that the framers anticipated that the Senate would serve as a small advisory council to the President, as the Senate of Maryland - their "working model" - served to the Governor of that state. Unaniminity or lack thereof was not likely contemplated by the framers in that setting. Thirdly, the Senate was granted permission to set its own rules of procedure. No qualifications were placed on this, other than that no State could be deprived of its Senate representation, and a Senator could only be expelled with the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate. If the framers intended to safeguard the minority from the duly-appointed rules of the Senate, they declined to put that concern into writing down, and thus it is lost to us. I'm an originalist in the original understanding (Scalia) model, not the original intent (Bork) model. The filibuster, in my view, is a creature of the Senate rules, not the Constitution; it is neither mandated nor precluded by the Constitution, and thus exists or does not exist as the Senate chooses, by the processes it determines for the setting of its rules (this is precisely why I opposed the nuclear option: not because I dislike the intent, but because it is unconstitutional). Fourthly and lastly, the checks and balances of the framers were the separation of powers in the first place - the mere fact that only the President could carry out some functions, while only the Congress could carry out other functions, and that the President could only carry out certain functions in collusion with the Senate. None of this seems to offer much evidence as to the intentions of the framers to create a right for a minority political party vis-a-vis the conduct of business in the Senate. Simon Dodd 18:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advice and Consent
In the new Advice and consent section:
 * 1) I question the whether there were in fact 40 blocked Circuit court nominees of Clinton.  There were not that many vacancies at the end of his term.  This figure may include nominees blocked, later withdrawn and replaced with a later confirmed nominee (seat is still filled even though the earlier nominee is counted as being blocked).  Or the figure could just be wrong, people twist numbers in speeches, which is where this information comes from.  Accuracy should be reviewed in any case.
 * 2) A discussion of vacancies at the end of the Clinton term should be coupled with a discussion of vacancies at the end of the GHW Bush term.  From what I remember, these numbers are about the same.  Clinton ended up appointing about the number of vacancies created in his term -- the vacancies he left in 2001 being offset by the open seats he inherited in 1993.  In '93 and '94 when the Democrats controlled the Senate a very large number of confirmations were done.
 * When the data from Federal judicial appointment history is done, I will provide the exact figures. This is all historical stuff and I know some of you don't feel this history is relevant.  The nuclear option is the current field of battle, but other fields have been used in the judge fight in the past (For example, the 1978, 1984, and 1990 expansion of the circuits (new seats created) had associated agreements between the parties about how many judges the current President could fill and how many would be deferred to the next presidential term -- in 1984 they agreed that Reagan could not fill many of the new seats in his first term, in hopes of a Mondale victory in the election)  These past agreements/battles are now largely forgotten, but at the time were quite hot, as is the nuclear option now.  NoSeptember            17:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * History is absolutely relevant, as long as we don't write a dissertation. BTW, I've seen no mention of FDR's efforts to expand the Supreme Court.  Is a brief statement + link appropriate?  Where?--ghost 17:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with this article is the definition of its focus. Is it about a parliamentary procedure?  Or is it about a fight over judicial nominations?  We have a bit of both mixed in and it just keeps expanding.  So my guess is that the FDR stuff will come in when someone decides to add it (although it is discussed in the Supreme Court of the United States article so only a link would be needed) --  Oh, and don't forget the big fight with Andrew Johnson, when they actually reduced the size of the SCOTUS to prevent him from appointing anyone. :) :P  NoSeptember            18:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I approach it from a parliamentary procedure point of view. I see no basis for differentiating between the use of the filibuster against legislation and the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees (both sides have claimed, at various times, that the Nuclear option relates only to Judicial nominees, but I confress that I am bewildered as to where this bright red line between judicial nominees - or any other kind of nominee - and other legislative business is to be found), and therefore the issue at hand is largely moot. It's a procedural question, IMO. Simon Dodd 19:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * (nods head) It's a procedural question steeped in more in customs and practices than law. That's why it's hard to find the "bright red line", because the Senators choose to keep it hidden in chambers.  Thus it is hairsplitting BS to those of us that aren't poli-sci nerds.  But it's BS that has the potential to tip the balence of power on a national level.  NoSeptember, you make a good point of "article creep".  I'm all for linking out, even splitting out, the excess prose.  Any suggestions?--ghost 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, smirk, a lot of Senate procedure is considered "hairsplitting BS" to those who those of you who aren't "poli-sci nerds". ;) Simon Dodd 20:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

todd webster quote
Todd Webster, Daschle’s spokesman, said: “For the majority to change the rules instead of playing fairly by them would be a colossal admission of obstinacy. What’s their next power grab… replacing the president with a king?”

reorder
ghost, I assume you're finished with your rewrite. I started moving some blocks around, trying to put some stuff in chronological order. This thing is looking really rough right now, and a little bit dry. Reading it, I don't get any sense that, at the time, this was considered something that could tear the country apart. anyway, I just pulled some blocks of text around and put them somewhere near chronological order. this is gonna need a lot of grooming to get to something smooth and readable. There's a lot of rough edges from all the cutting and pasting that went on. too tired to do anything tonight, though. going to bed.--FW


 * Your reorder does smooth things, and it's certainly juicier. My only concerns are that the detail offered in the relocated sections ('extremeist' judges, Political motivations, etc.) distracts from the storytelling flavor of the timeline format, by seeming to go off on tangents.  My instinct is to trim the sections, but I hate the idea of losing some of the facts.  Ideas?  Simon, you view?  I really like this storytelling build, guys.  It's getting better, and as we move into a more historical context, will present a better snapshot for those that follow.--ghost 02:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Extremist' judges
Moved from section:
 * Janice Rogers Brown.
 * Opposition: The Los Angeles Times calls Brown "A bad fit for a key court". Brown's alleged dogmatism and a style bordering on vituperation earned her only a qualified rather than well qualified rating from the American Bar Association. Some committee members found her unfit for the appeals court. The New York Times editorialized, "Brown's record as a judge is ... cause for alarm. She regularly stakes out extreme positions, often dissenting alone." People for the American Way President Ralph G. Neas described Janice Rogers Brown as the "far right's dream judge." . Senate Minority leader Harry Reid said "She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days"  A list of over 100 organizations that oppose Brown's confirmation is given here.
 * Another view: Supporters counter that Brown has opposed racial profiling and won election and then re-election (with 75% of the vote) to the Supreme Court of California.  Supporters also argue that Justice Brown's record of judicial decisions cannot support a characterization of her views as "extremist,"   and that her record evinces a sensitivity to civil rights.  In 2000, she followed the Supreme Court's lead in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, striking down a San Jose city ordinance requiring government contractors to solicit bids from companies owned by women and minorities, demonstrating her opposition to affirmative action.


 * Justice Priscilla Owen.
 * Opposition: The Houston Chronicle characterized Owen as "one of the most conservative" justices on "Texas' Republican-dominated top court." Owen is part of a court that some have criticized for accepting campaign contributions from parties appearing before it&mdash;while its justices do not recuse themselves from those cases.(PDF file) The New York Times said Owen is "considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation's most conservative supreme courts." The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (representing 180 national organizations) calls Owen a "judicial activist with a disturbing willingness to effectively rewrite or disregard the law." A list of of 60 organizations that oppose Owen's confirmation is given here
 * Another view: Greg Abbott, attorney general of Texas and a former justice on the Texas supreme court, disputes the above charge from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Justice Owen received a unanimous rating of "well qualified" from the American Bar Association.  In 2000, she was re-elected to the Texas Supreme Court with 84% of the vote.

Moved by --ghost 00:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) These really seemed out of place in the narrative of the article. This content seems to be more appropriate on their individual articles, or in a reference section that includes the other nominees. What do you think is more appropriate?--ghost 00:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ghost, the two nominees that were considered the most extremist, considered to be the main reason for filibustering in teh first place, were Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. Taking out the section that shows the polar views on these two is like writing an article about "war of the worlds" and cutting out the part about the aliens. When I write narrative stuff, I get nailed for not quoting sources directly. But this is nothing but direct quotes and it gets cut anyway. I think it could be spliced into the narrative with a sentence or two of lead-in mentioning that these two were at the center of the debate, and then just go into all the quotes. This is an encyclopedia article, so I don't think it has to read quite as smoot as a bedtime story. FuelWagon 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are a couple sentences that lead into the various quotes. They are still in the article. All the quotes have been removed. FuelWagon 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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)