\Daily Kos gives us a shocking visual for the reason Senator Reid had to do this:
h/t Daily Kos
The Republicans brought this on themselves and the US Senate. They've done nothing but obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct. And President Obama has endured this spiteful, destructive behavior from this GOP senate minority more than any other president in the history of this country.
Good on you Harry.
Republicans have sought, as a rule, to use every tactic imaginable to block the initiatives and policies proposed by this president. They've done so since the night of his inauguration.
The use of the filibuster by the Republican minority to block President Obama's nominees (judicial and executive branch) is part of an unprecedented ratcheting-up of the use of that tactic.
As Gail Collins so wonderfully put it, we're now at a point where the nomination of a new Federal Reserve Chair cannot come to a vote until Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) decides there's been sufficient discussion of Benghazi.
Great work, Senator Reid, and kudos to the other fifty-one Senate Democrats who did the right thing today. It's a new day for the U.S Senate. --Ian Reifowitz, Daily Kos
Now let Mr. Obama do what he was elected to do!\
Did I mention how much I love Charlie Pierce?
I have no doubt that the civility crowd will scream bloody murder now that Harry Reid has dropped the big one in the Senate.
They may need the Jaws of Life to pry Ruth Marcus off the fainting couch. As I said before. I was nervous about this prospect for years, but recently passed over the International Fk You Line.
The country has a right to be governed by the president and the philosophy for which the country voted.
Vandalism is not debate. It is not governing. It is long past time for Barack Obama actually to be allowed to be president. (And, it must be said, the fact that it was necessary for the Senate to take this step further belies as naive the president's star-making speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.)
Good for Pat Leahy for stepping up on this. All I can say is that Harry Reid must have been a tough fighter for the late rounds.
23 comments:
Dufus Harry, s Senator I rarely find myself in agreement with made the right decision on this.
In your gleeful euphoria keep in mind it cuts both ways.
RN, it DOES NOT cut both ways (check the graphic).
You had hat freak Jim DeMint who put a filibuster on EVERY single piece of Democratic legislation in the Senate.
You had the "grand bargain" to get that fascist freak Priscilla Owens and a few other mouth breathing Bush appointees passed. No significant Bush nominee was ever blocked.
The Baggers just pushed too far and both of us understand that.
Good for Pat Leahy for stepping up on this.
------
They even got Diane Feinstein (D - Bechtel) to go along with it.
Molly Ball explains why the Senate blew up part of the filibuster today:
Why did Reid pull the trigger? He was tired of making deals with McConnell, only to see their spirit violated by yet more obstruction, allies say. The two reached an informal agreement in January that was supposed to lead to fewer filibuster threats, and another deal in July that paved the way for several executive-branch nominations, including Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Thomas Perez to head the Department of Labor. But none of these bargains affected the overall trend of blockage, and Reid finally had enough.
Patrick Caldwell provides more details:
The real reason Democrats were so eager to confirm Obama’s DC Circuit nominees, and Republicans were so desperate to block them, is that the court’s current conservative majority has repeatedly blocked the president’s agenda. Since most of the federal bureaucracy resides in DC, the DC Circuit is tasked with assessing the constitutionality of federal rules and regulations. Conservatives on the court have neutered much of Dodd-Frank, the post-recession financial reform bill that was meant to keep banks in check. The court also overturned Obama’s ability to appoint staff while Congress is out of town and struck down state environmental rules that would have regulated emissions from other states.
The change Ducky the change. But like I said, ambivalent. It was however the right call.
We are 93 judges short right now... President Obama should immediately nominate judges for everyone of those spots and Harry Reid, my Senator from Nevada, should move to confirm them all.
If you have your nominees in the judicial branch, you control the direction of the country. The GOP has been doing it since the Reagan Admin... it's high time the Dems gave them a taste of their own medicine...
I generally try not to be as blatantly partisan, but the treatment of President Obama's nominees has been ridiculous.
I'm waiting for the GOP folks to start whining... it's not like President Obama has nominated anyone unqualified, ala Harriet Miers.
In fact, all three of the nominees that caused this kerfuffle have majority support in the Senate including some Republicans...
The GOP was purely holding up qualified nominees for political reasons... is that a good reason Skud?
"Way to nuke ’em, Harry.
It was time — actually, long past time — for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to invoke the “nuclear option” and ask his colleagues to change the Senate’s rules. This isn’t about partisan politics. It’s about making what has been called “the world’s greatest deliberative body” function the way the Framers of the Constitution intended.
Recently, it has barely functioned, as Republicans abused the old rules to prevent the chamber from performing its enumerated duties. There was a time when the minority party in the Senate would have been embarrassed to use such tactics in pursuit of ends that are purely political, but we seem to live in an era without shame."
Long overdue ... and at the right time. With respect to threatened retaliations by the GOP, just noise. Demographic trends now favor the Democrats, and there is very little the GOP can do other than moan and groan.
Dave Miller said:
If you have your nominees in the judicial branch, you control the direction of the country. The GOP has been doing it since the Reagan Admin... it's high time the Dems gave them a taste of their own medicine...
++++++++++++++++++++
It goes back further than that, sir. Remember FDR's court packing scheme? It was shot down, but he had already packed the lower judiciary with pliant judges. One should also remember that the Supreme Justices at that time had been enabling his progressive agenda, but he ended up going too far.
So, yes, it is a common thing for political movements in this country to do by judicial fiat what they cannot do via our representative democracy. Sad.
"Recently, it has barely functioned"
Precisely how the system was designed, sir.
No, Anonymous, the system was NOT designed to have the country run by minorities who lose elections, and that is precisely what's been going on.
It is one thing for a minority to have some say in governing, as our founding fathers provided, but it is entirely different when that minority paralyzes the government for purely partisan reasons. And that's what the GOP has done and would have continued to do.
Here's Alexander Hamilton on the subject:
'If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated.'
What it means: Hamilton argues that the requirement for a supermajority allows a minority to delay legislation improperly and force unpopular compromises."
And here is James Madison, the father of our Constitution:
'In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."
Madison argues that any procedure that requires a supermajority actually empowers the minority, since it only takes 41 percent of lawmakers to stop a bill, and he says this is undemocratic."
And Thomas Jefferson:
'No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. ... The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided.'
First, Jefferson argues that no senator can speak for longer than necessary. Later, he argues that simple majority rule (lex majoris partis) is the basic guiding principle for legislative votes."
The TeaPublicans fetishize the Constitution, but conveniently ignore what the men who wrote it intended. And they do so for rank partisan reasons, not for principled objectives.
The GOP brought this on themselves. What will happen in the future remains to be seen.
Lets not forget that many conservatives have cited majority rule as a requirement of government that is representative of the people.
Well that didn't take long. Cloture invoked on nominee Patricia Millett 55-43!
Shaw,
I am Anon from above. While your constitutional disquisition above is interesting, it has no bearing on this discussion.
Reid did not do anything unconstitutional. He removed a senate rule.
The founders did indeed set up a system that pitted different and diverse power systems against one another. So any one radical faction trying to ram through a narrow agenda will meet with problems, which is how it should be.
Dave, you are a gentleman and a true Christian. I ventured over to one of those conservative blogs and saw that one of their commenters called you a "douchbag" in response to your comment.
Why go there anymore. Those people do nothing but attack and defile anyone who has a different opinion.
Why do you waste your time there? They are rude and crude. And don't forget, they're the ones who parade their "Christianity" every Sunday, but allow people to demean, denigrate, and abuse good people like you.
I'm done with them. (O)CT(O)PUS has been right all along. But I had to learn it the hard way.
How can we deal with such angry, unhappy and hateful people? Here's how I do it. I don't visit them anymore.
You can't change their minds, especially minds that are marinated in so much hatred.
Anon, in theory that may be true, but the senate GOPers who have been obstructing the president have been obstructing nominees that even THEY approved. They were behaving as they have simply for the goal of obstruction and denying President Obama what every other president was allowed.
This could not continue.
Reid did the correct thing, and we will see how this plays out 3 or 4 years from now.
Mr. Titcombe,
What the senate GOPers were doing had nothing whatsoever to do with representative democracy. It had to do with sheer obstructionism and nullification.
BTW, Dave, the person who calls him/herself Hildergard Hammhocker is the same person who calls him/herself "Just Joanna" and comments on other con blogs.
Here's proof:
JustJoannaOctober 25, 2013 at 10:49:00 AM EDT
scroll down to the 22nd comment, click on the "Just Joanna" link, and you'll see the Blogger profile # is the same as "Hildegard Hammhocker."
The people who comment at those blogs are frauds and multiple blog personality commenters who come to my blog, copy my words and post under fake names there.
They apparently are fascinated by what I write and it also apparently drives them nuts.
They're my best fans.
The Hildegard/Joanna faker has been other blogging IDs as well. Do they all suffer from multiple personality disorder? Or are they constantly changing their IDs to fool others as well as themselves? The way they follow the P.E. blog is proof you do the most to tick them off they don't follow other liberal blogger like they follow you.
There is strength in numbers, a foundation of collectivism of all sorts.
When 1 person can become 3, 5, 10, or potentially more it give the impression among the unsuspecting there is greater numbers than there really are.
Just a thought, just a possibility. It's war you know. At least in the eyes of some.
Ambivalence has its place...
Shaw (quoting Molly Ball): But none of these bargains affected the overall trend of blockage, and Reid finally had enough.
It's about time, I think.
Dave Miller: We are 93 judges short right now... President Obama should immediately nominate judges for everyone of those spots and Harry Reid... should move to confirm them all.
Agreed.
Also, in regards to the ambivalence of a previous commenter... IMO ambivalence for someone who has strong opinions on the subject of politics is admitting defeat. Which, if you are a Libertarian is reasonable thing, seeing as Libertarians are in the minority (and for good reason).
I am not admiting defeat. I am ambivalent over people like you that populate the blogoshere on both sides.
Post a Comment