The Wall Street Journal has a great article (“The Byrd Option.” Wall Street Journal, 7 March 2005, A18) in reply to Senator Robert C. Byrd’s protest over the “nuclear option.”

You doubtless remember how the West Virginia Senator stood on the floor of the Senate and compared the Republican Senate leadership to “Nazi Germany” and “Mussolini’s Italy” when they threatened to exercise the “nuclear option” and let the Senate vote on the President’s nominees.

WSJ penned, “Herr Byrd does get carried away, but more revealing than his rhetoric was the substance of his remarks, on which he elaborated in an op-ed article in Friday’s Washington Post. Somehow in his excoriation of a tactic that would deny Senators ‘their right to free speech on judicial nominations,’ Mr. Byrd forgot to mention that he pioneered the practice.”

The nuclear option is simple to understand. Democrats are currently keeping the Senate from voting for or against the Presidential nominees by filibustering before each vote. Because a filibuster requires 60 votes, ending it has been impossible. To circumvent the Democrat’s abusive partisanship, “ Majority Leader Bill Frist would ask for a ruling from the Senate’s presiding officer that under Rule XXII only a simple majority vote is needed to end debate on judicial nominations.” The rule would be easily adopted with 51 votes and the Senate could then vote on the nominee.

While Senator Byrd raised a furor over the Republicans even thinking about a rule change, the WSJ notes several occasions in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 where then Majority Leader Byrd did the exact same thing.

“…Mr. Byrd mounted a charge to eliminate the possibility of a double filibuster — first on a motion to proceed to a nomination and then on a nomination itself. He wanted to push through the confirmation of Robert White as ambassador… Mr. Byrd moved to get rid of the first filibuster opportunity — debate on motions to proceed to nominations…and the Senate voted 54-38 to overturn the chair. The rule change went into effect.”

In a time where dementia is doubtless plaguing the Senator, this reminder from the Wall Street Journal is appropriate. Perhaps old age is making the Senator forget where he used to stand on the “nuclear option” or maybe he just being partisan again.

Regardless, the WSJ has a piece of parting advice. “As Republicans move to explain what they’re doing to give nominees their Constitutional right to a vote on the Senate floor, we suggest they refer to the tactic as the Byrd option.“