State’s GOP Senators Cry Foul On ‘Nuclear Option’

The change will allow executive and judicial nominations, with the exception of Supreme Court nominations, to move to a full Senate vote with a simple majority, rather than a 60-vote supermajority.

Democrats argue President Barack Obama’s nominees have faced unprecedented resistance from the GOP, and say the move was necessary.  Senate majority leader Harry Reid said the need to change the rules was “obvious.”

“These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote. But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the President his team.”

In a statement, Sen. Saxby Chambliss called the move “unconscionable,” and said gridlock would only increase as a result.

“The Senate we once knew is now gone and the legislative gridlock and partisan posturing will only increase with this latest move by the Democrats. We will hear what the American people think about this next November.”

Sen. Johnny Isakson echoed those sentiments.

“The balance of power of power and the checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches certainly has been violated by what the Democrats did,” Isakson said.  

But in 2004, when Senate Democrats were holding up then-President George W. Bush’s nominations, Isakson took the opposite stance. He said both sides are guilty of flipping positions over the years.  

“Obviously the party in the majority is going to be for it. The party in the minority is going to be against it,” Isakson said. “Any of us with a decade of service in the Congress in the last 10 years have had the chance on both sides of the issue to either be for it or against it. Probably most everybody has.”

But Isakson says Republicans showed restraint in opting against passing a nuclear option in the past, something Democrats failed to do Thursday.  

On whether Republicans would undo the change when they regained control of the Senate – Isakson says that’s the responsibility of future majorities.