Of course GOP will do that. McConnell just said that they will. Do you blame them?
This is kind of an empty threat. This is what the GOP senators already have been doing for the past year. They have no more levers to pull.
What is the “this” that you’re talking about?
Its part of the typical Republican strategy: never admit weakness, never give an inch, never compromise. What John is doing is typical: a big break for Democrats is instead spun into how it will be good someday for the Republicans. Lets not spend one nanosecond dwelling on how bad this could be for Republicans, or how it may all work out for Democrats, lets change the story to how well this will play out in the future!
When McCain lost, the extreme right said it would pave the way for a true conservative. When Romney lost, the patted themselves on the back on how they retained the House. Republican conservatives have no mechanism in their brain for self-reflection. Everything always turns out for them. This is just another opportunity.
I’m glad Reid did this, it may be late, but better than never. Let’s face it, with the obstructionist Tea Baggers and those afraid of them currently the majority of the former Republican party, there is 100% chance that they would have pulled this nuclear option once they get the chance. I’ve absolutely no doubt about it. So the choice Reid had to face wasn’t a working Senate with nice little rules and decorum on one side vs. a conservative party ready to seize power by any means on the other, the choice was between whether the Democrats would get a few years use out of having no filibusters or simply let the Republicans pull this card once they get back into power.
What I would like to see, if the conservatives on this board or elsewhere have any desire to even appear to be fair, is an assessment of how their own party pushed this on themselves, and the possibility that the American public may actually love a Congress, or at least a Senate, that can do things instead of being held hostage by an extreme minority. Or is every conservative just going to pretend that this news can only be good?
Yes, because its their obstructionism that has caused this drastic action. Consider this: The Senate, with no GOP obstruction, votes to confirm Obama’s DC court nominees immediately, votes to confirm people in the past that have been nominated like Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection Agency, or finally to get someone in as director of the ATF. Imagine that scenario versus blocking everything and pretending like each nominee is Satan-levels worst than the one before it. Maybe acknowledge that yes, Warren may be liberal, but the CPA is the law and should have a director and the GOP lost the election, so let’s just confirm her and try to undo it through legislative means later on.
But no, you guys pushed for this, got the obstruction you wanted, and now McConnell is crying into his turtle shell as if he would not have done it if he had the chance.
Here’s what McConnell should do: Make a statement saying that he’s pushed Reid too far and was finally called on his bluff. He’s sorry it happened and the GOP has gone too far, and in order to make amends, they will restore the filibuster rule if and when the GOP returns to power as a sign of good faith. And that he won’t use the procedural filibuster anymore. Otherwise, its all the GOP’s fault we’ve gotten to this point
Taking opposition of all Democratic legislation and appointments to the absolute procedural limit. We know what the world looks like in which they do that because they have been doing that already.
Sure, now McConnell can remove the filibuster entirely when he becomes majority leader. And that’s fine. It will suck to be a Democrat if the GOP gains control over all three branches of government, but on some level that is how it should be.
There have been 82 Obama executive and judicial nominees filibustered since 2009. Before that, there were 84 executive and judicial nominees filibustered since the beginning of Constitutional rule in the USA.
I’m absolutely gleeful that Charlie Brown finally kicked Lucy McConnell in the cooch.
I see. Then you were responding to some imaginary post, not mine.
Nonsense. You claim that now McConnell will now kill the filibuster altogether and “should we blame him.” My response is that now this is entirely without significance.
Exactly - there’s no basis under the Constitution, or really under tradition, that a sitting President with a Senate majority should not be able to get his or her nominations confirmed, within reason. (I would even take the position that a sitting President with a Senate minority should be able to do the same, although maybe “within reason” gets a little more unfavorable for the President in those circumstances.)
There was really no serious question about the qualifications of Obama’s recent nominees to the DC Circuit; the Senate Republicans simply stated that they didn’t think there should be any more judges appointed, and would not confirm any, under any circumstances. I do not believe for one instant that McConnell would have tolerated Harry Reid taking that same position were their positions reversed and a Republican sitting in the White House. And stuff like the recent filibuster of Mel Watt and the shenanigans with Chuck Hagel are really unprecedented in the modern era of US politics.
Typically what would happen is that they’d reach some sort of agreement, confirm one of the judges, and continue on their increasingly dysfunctional way. But if the Republicans were really determined to block every nominee under every condition from now on, then Reid’s only options were to try to change the rules or to simply concede that the President could not make any more appointments. If some sort of compromise was on offer then there would have been enough Democrats with institutional loyalty to keep the status quo. I doubt that Reid even really wanted to do this, but he also doesn’t want to hand over his gavel to McConnell either.
While IMHO the Dems should have abolished the filibuster entirely, (a) this is a big step in the right direction, (b) the filibuster will fall entirely sooner or later now, and (c) since they can’t get any legislation through the House anyway, it hardly matters whether or not the Senate Republicans can still filibuster legislation between now and January 2015.
Is my post an exaggeration? I think not.
Hi, Terr. I’m always fascinated when I attempt to understand your point of view. Please set aside, for a moment, the “Gotcha” you have going with another poster, and comment on GOP refusal to consent to Obama’s judiciary appointments. Do you defend their behavior? If so, why?
Yeah, I gotta admit that I don’t understand Mace’s Christie comment, either.
On the filibuster, making it not a total recall is a sop towards being able to present a moderate spin to it. When it’s brought up they can say, “Hey, we had to do something to get an up or down vote. And we didn’t kill the filibuster on the only nominations people care about…SCOTUS.”
It’s a reasonable position to take so that the move can be defended and presented as ‘Republican’s shut down the government and stopped the actions of government from happening. We had to deal with it or they’d keep preventing us from getting on with it.’
Yes, I think filibustering judiciary appointments is quite legitimate. The reason is that those are not positions that serve at President’s whim, and cannot be removed by subsequent administrations. Thus they have to reflect a reasonable consensus, and not just a momentary 51% majority.
That is also the reason why I think filibustering other Presidential appointments that do serve at the whim of the President and can be fired at any time is not legitimate and should not happen.
So did you feel this same way back in 2005 when the Republican majority leadership in the Senate threatened the nuclear option if Bush’s judicial nominees didn’t get an up or down vote? When McTurtle himself, dripping with sanctimony, begged for up or down votes on judges?
Until, of course, there’s a Republican president who gets free reign to appoint “right wing loonies”. Then Dems will scream and cry foul.
What about filibustering ALL judiciary appointments, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the candidates themselves?
Yes. And note that threatening is not the same as doing it.
Consensus is consensus. Lack of consensus is lack of consensus. What is not clear about that?
My first thought was “Payback for the fucking Hastert Rule in the House.” You know, the one they used to create the shutdown. The rule that says it doesn’t matter if the majority of the House will vote for something, if the majority of Republicans won’t, it will never see the light of day.
My second thought is; Good. Since the Republicans have shown they’re more interested in obstructing the Business of Government rather than participating in it, they can sit in the corner and sulk for all I care.
Consensus used to be 50%.
Throwing an 8 year tantrum isn’t leadership.