United States: US senators were last night scrambling to avert a political crisis over the Democrats' right to block President George Bush's judicial nominees, in a ferocious battle that could transform America's balance of power.
Centrist senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties were due to hold last-ditch meetings aimed at finding a compromise solution to a political conflict that threatens to bring the Senate to a standstill and further divide an already polarised country.
At stake is one of the Democratic minority's last remaining powers in the Republican-dominated political landscape - the filibuster, or the right to block Senate motions simply by making speeches until time for the debate expires.
A "cloture" vote, cutting off a filibuster, currently requires 60 votes, and the Republicans have only 55 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
In the absence of a last-minute deal, the Republican leader, Bill Frist, will today try to force a change in Senate rules banning filibusters with a simple majority, 51 votes, a move so controversial it is widely known as the "nuclear option".
Camp beds were set up in the Senate yesterday in anticipation of an all-night session, and the rhetoric on both sides rose to fever pitch.
President Bush, whose power to appoint judges of his choosing is at stake today, signalled he was in no mood for concessions.
"I said I'll pick people who will bring great credit to the bench, and that's exactly what I've done," the president said yesterday. "And I expect them to get an up-or-down vote."
Although the White House insists the row over parliamentary rules is a matter for the Senate, it has been active behind the scenes lobbying wavering Republicans.
The vice president, Dick Cheney, in his constitutional role as the Senate's president, is expected to play an important role in today's manoeuvres.
The judicial nominee at issue in today's vote is Priscilla Owen, a Texas right-wing judge labelled an extremist by Democrats, who is a candidate for a federal appeals court.
But the vote is really a dry run for the looming struggle over the composition of the supreme court, which in turn determines US law on abortions, gay marriage and a host of other divisive cultural issues.
The constitution requires the Senate to give its "advice and consent" on the choice of senior judges. It does not mention filibusters, but both sides are pointing to Senate precedent to support their cause.
The Democrats' Senate leader, Harry Reid, told university students over the weekend that Senator Frist and Mr Cheney would "seek to change 214 years of American law and tradition".
"That contempt for the rules and the law of rules will set a new precedent - an illegal precedent - that will always remain on the pages of Senate history," Mr Reid said.
The non-partisan congressional research service has added weight to the Democratic argument by pointing out that Senate rule changes have traditionally required a two-thirds majority - 67 votes.
The Republicans, meanwhile, argue that it is the Democrats who are breaking with tradition. They say the filibuster has historically been used to block legislation, which is open to tinkering and compromise, and not judicial nominations.
Both sides were last night claiming to have the votes to win today's battle, but it appeared that several Republican senators had yet to make up their mind.
Centrist senators from each party were trying to reach a compromise. Under the proposed deal, the Democrats would agree to allow straight votes on most of President Bush's nominees while reserving the right to filibuster against "extreme" supreme court nominations. In return the Republican moderates would help vote down the nuclear option. - (Guardian service)