Well, ol' Harry went and done did it. With the exception of Supreme Court nominees, executive and judicial nominees need a simple majority in the Senate to be confirmed. Considering the adolescent behavior of Republicans, I'd say Harry actually waited longer than I thought he would. If the Democrats were ever in the minority (and they won't be as long as the GOP runs farther and farther right), I'd say the same thing. In fact, I think the Democrats will be better off for this as they actually want to govern as opposed to taking their ball and going home. Elections have consequences and acting like a baby and throwing a tantrum because you don't like the president, desperately want him to fail, and feel that he doesn't deserve the job doesn't mean you get to grind the government down to non function.
Your petty games in this area (and soon others) are now over.
5 comments:
Nothing like a naked exercise of pure partisan power to get Mark doing backflips.
Here is what Barak Obama wrote about the nuclear option:
So it came to pass that President Bush, emboldened by a bigger Republican majority in the Senate and his self-proclaimed mandate, decided in the first few weeks of his second term to re-nominate seven previously filibustered judges. As a poke in the eye to the Democrats, it produced the desired response. Democratic leader Harry Reid called it a "big wet kiss" to the far Right, and renewed the threat of a filibuster. Republicans, sensing that this was the time to go in for the kill, announced that if Democrats continued in their obstructionist ways, they would have no choice but to invoke the dreaded "nuclear option," a novel procedural maneuver that would involve the Senate's presiding officer - perhaps Vice President Cheney himself - ignoring the opinion of the Senate Parliamentarian, breaking 200 years of Senate precedent, and deciding with the simple bang of a gavel that the use of the filibuster was no longer permissible under the Senate rules - at least when it came to judicial nominations.
To me, the threat to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations was just one more example of Republicans changing the rules in the middle of the game.
…
Moreover, a good argument could be made that a vote on judicial nominations is precisely the situation where the filibuster's supermajority requirement makes sense. Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments, and often serve through the terms of multiple Presidents, it behooves the President and benefits our Democracy to find moderate nominees who can find some measure of bipartisan support.
Nothing like a little hypocrisy to spice up Mark's day.
Here is a question that distinguishes good judges from activist judges (and which Mark refuses to answer):
Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree? (Started 127 days ago and counting)
acting like a baby and throwing a tantrum because you don't like the president, desperately want him to fail, and feel that he doesn't deserve the job doesn't mean you get to grind the government down to non function.
Why do I have things like "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" running through my memory?
The filibuster was never intended to be used on every single vote in the Senate.
It has been clear for five years that the Republicans will do anything to obstruct President Obama in order to get their way. Republicans have demonstrated over and over in that time that they no longer give a whit about tradition, smoothly functioning government, doing their jobs or even common sense: they just want to get their way, and will do anything to get it, including shutting down the government. If the Tea Party had their way, they'd also send the government into default just to spite the president.
It's therefore completely disingenuous for them to pretend that they'd never exercise the nuclear option. If Democrats during the Bush administration had been as consistently intransigent as Republicans during the Obama administration, Mitch McConnell would have done it with a lot less handwringing than Harry Reid.
Senate Republicans were preventing the president from installing an effective management team, as well as hampering the proper functioning of the judicial system. During the Bush presidency they constantly yammered how important it was to increase the power of the executive branch was, and recently Republicans have been complaining bitterly about how Obama has debased the presidency by asking for Congress to vote whether we should invade Syria, instead of unilaterally blasting Assad to Kingdom Come. Can't Republicans make up their minds?
The filibuster is still in place for Supreme Court and legislative votes. That relegates it to what it was intended for in the first place.
The mistake Harry Reid made with this vote was not changing the rules to require those filibustering to actually jawbone in a real filibuster of the Jimmy Stewart variety. If these clowns had to stand there and make fools of themselves every time they wanted to torpedo a law or nomination, they would do it whole lot less.
Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Good times, good times.
It has been clear for five years that the Republicans will do anything to obstruct President Obama in order to get their way.
And Obama has made it clear for five years that the only concession he will make is to get his way....
doing their jobs
Their jobs is to represent their constituents. If that mean opposing the crap the left wants - then that is their job.
shutting down the government
Which was a choice the left made - they could have kept it going, but they wanted all their cookies.
they just want to get their way, and will do anything to get it
Nikto,
Is the Constitution law? (316 days and counting)
If it is, then why is opposing actions which violate the Law merely wanting to "get their way"? If it is not law, then so what? Democrats also want to "get their way" and were equally willing to shut down the government to get it.
If there is no tie-breaker (like the Constitution or math) then fighting over who gets their way is how it's supposed to work.
Hey lookie here!
"The American people have rejected the nuclear option because they see it for what it is — an unconstitutional abuse of power."
Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, April 26, 2005
Post a Comment