The Obama agenda (at least the one we thought we were voting for) does not seem at this point to have any chance of passing through the Senate unless and until the filibuster rule is amended or abolished. A lockstep Republican caucus, allied with a handful of complicit Conservadems, guarantees that any major legislative initiative has to be premasticated to pablum before it will go to the floor for a vote.
Given that there certainly aren't 67 votes to change the filibuster rule before the next session, and given that Give 'em Hell Harry is, shall we say, unlikely to push for a major rule change in the organizing resolution of the next session, wouldn't it make sense to go nuke now, before possible GOP gains in the upcoming midterms make things even more difficult.
The nuclear option is currently under discussion at FDL, as well as elsewhere, and I think it would be useful to get the input of the DKos community too.
Don your radiation hazard suit and follow me below.
From the wikipedia article on the nuclear option: [emphasis mine]
A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.
The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
Is the wikipedia description of the procedure correct?
If so, what are the downsides? Would the Republicans threaten to shut down the Senate? Would this be a winning strategy for them? (Dear America, we have taken this necessary action because the Democrats are trying to ram through a socialistic majority rule?)
Let's discuss.