John Cornyn: “I want to turn to another subject briefly. The reason I changed the subject from bankruptcy to this is provoked by an…”

“I want to turn to another subject briefly. The reason I changed the subject from bankruptcy to this is provoked by an op-ed piece that I read today, and that others in this body may have read, published in the Washington Post. This article is called `` `Nuking' Free Speech,'' certainly an attention-grabbing headline. As it turns out, reading the op-ed, it is what I can only describe as a breathless statement made in writing by one of our distinguished colleagues, claiming there are efforts to reinstate majority rule when it comes to the procedures that govern our advice and consent function; that is, the procedures by which we evaluate Federal judges sent to the Senate for our consideration under our advice and consent function. Somehow, the opponents of reinstating the 200-and-more year tradition of majority rule when it comes to confirming Federal judges have been able to convince the press and others that this represents a nuclear option. Hence, the title and, hence, the first sentence in this op-ed. It says: A ``nuclear option'' is targeting the Senate. That is unfortunate because it suggests people who want to reinstate majority rule when it comes to advice and consent on the President's judicial nominees are somehow doing something radical, something dangerous, something potentially catastrophic when, in fact, that is not the case.”