Correct. But you do need to pass legislation to do it, and passing any nontrivial legislation is next to impossible. The Senate is balanced 50-50, and since the people of Nevada don't want nuclear waste in their back yard, they will always vote against it.
Every issue is a partisan issue, which is why we have parties. Nevada doesn't want it and enlists their allies for support. It so happens that they are Democrats, and it's true that there is an anti nuclear wing of the Democratic party, but that's not really the issue here. They don't want to be forced to take nuclear waste and their allies support them.
If the opposing party managed to force them, their candidates would get creamed (in Nevada) up and down the ballot. Right up to the top.
That's democracy. You get votes by trading your top issues for other people's. It tends to settle into parties to formalize the arrangements.
> Every issue is a partisan issue, which is why we have parties.
No, we have parties because some issues are partisan. If every issue was partisan, then "partisan" wouldn't have any meaning. Trivial counter proof: the PATRIOT Acts was a bipartisan issue.
> Nevada doesn't want it and enlists their allies for support. It so happens that they are Democrats, and it's true that there is an anti nuclear wing of the Democratic party, but that's not really the issue here. They don't want to be forced to take nuclear waste and their allies support them.
You referenced a 50/50 split in congress as an obstacle as though one party is opposes nuclear and one party favors it. I don't think that's the case--I think there's strong anti-nuclear representation on both sides.
> That's democracy. You get votes by trading your top issues for other people's. It tends to settle into parties to formalize the arrangements.
Right, but that doesn't imply that nuclear is a partisan issue, contra your claims.
For a long time, it was specifically that the Democratic party leader was from Nevada. It doesn't make the party as a whole anti-nuclear, but it makes the party oppose finishing Yucca Mountain.
I'm not sure what's going on with that now. Apparently the Democrats still oppose it. As do many Republicans, who didn't force it through when they had the chance.
As I said, it's not so much about pro vs anti nuclear but specifically about Yucca Mountain. Even pro nuclear people don't necessarily want to build there specifically. The 50-50 split means that it takes unanimity to get anything done, and neither party has it. (It takes more than unanimity, in fact, but usually much more to get past the filibuster.)
