US Senate uproar over "filibuster" reform US Senate Democrats are preparing to adopt what their opponents call "the nuclear option" to expedite White House appointments in a move that will poison relations with Republicans in a chamber already divided deeply along partisan lines. The change to Senate rules proposed by Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, has an ostensibly simple purpose - to allow President Barack Obama's nominees to cabinet and federal agencies to be cleared by a simple majority vote. But within the Senate, a chamber seeped in its own evolving tradition of rules and voting, the Reid proposal to reform the so-called filibuster is the most significant, and divisive, change to procedure for years. Instead of the 60 votes now needed in the 100-member chamber to get any measure through, Mr Reid wants a simple majority of 51 votes to end debates on presidential nominations. "The power of the extreme minority threatens the integrity of this institution," said Mr Reid. Republicans, who say few Obama nominees have been held up, say the "nuclear option" could bring the chamber's work to a near standstill. The filibuster debate is running in parallel with a bitter war of words between Mr Reid and the Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, both Senate veterans who had until recently retained at least a public façade of cordiality. The filibuster conjures up the image of Jimmy Stewart in the movie, Mr Smith Goes to Washington, of an upstanding member of Congress taking to the floor and speaking continuously for hours on a point of principle. In reality, the filibuster in different forms is now wielded as a regular partisan tool, to delay legislation, and appointees, many of whom are later voted through overwhelmingly. If Mr Reid goes ahead, the first vote will come this week, to approve the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, appointed temporarily by Mr Obama during a Senate recess. Mr Cordray's Senate approval has been held up for nearly two years by Republicans, who object more to the agency's regulatory role than to the nominee. "Their aim is to use this [appointment] to leverage their ability to renegotiate the structure of the agency," said Sarah Binder, of the Brookings Institution. The same applies to Gina McCarthy, whose appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has also been held up. Republicans are highly critical of the EPA. Senators of both parties were due to attend an unusual joint meeting on yesterday to discuss Mr Reid's proposal. Many veteran Democrats who have experienced time in the minority are uneasy about the change also, for fear it will be used against them should they lose their majority in 2014.