Something changed between McConnell’s 2009 letter and Schumer’s 2017 reply. Something that made the minority leader’s opinion on what should or should not be optional for Cabinet confirmation hearings largely irrelevant. Any guesses what that might have been?
Who cares?
Incessant and irrational Republican obstructionism at every fucking turn?
You keep saying this. I don’t think it means what you think it does. But then, I’m not at all sure what the heck you think it means.
Clearly, the intent is deprecatory, belittling. An epithet for a splinter group, with no significant political presence. So, can hardly be Hillary, right? Given all those votes. You probably heard. So, good, Hillary is not “far left”. Rather reassuring for a radical lefty like myself, frankly.
So what do you mean? That nice little grandmother from San Francisco? She “far left”? Did they both enjoy this inordinately? Inappropriately? Like a fart joke at church?
(And c’mon, admit it. It was the perfect squelch, he trolled McConnel with the deftness of a world class fly-fisherman. You chuckled, and then had to remind yourself to cut it out. If you had done what he had done, you would have been insufferably smug for a week.)
What about Al Franken, and Ms. Klobuchar? The “far left” isn’t nice, and they are native Minnesotans! Case closed.
The asshole is in charge of the outhouse?
Well, they’re the job creators.
It’s funny. Fifteen years ago, I was a moderate Republican. Voted for Dole. Voted For W (the first time, not the second). The only major thing I’ve changed my tune on is gay marriage (now pro, then anti). But somehow, I’ve become “far left”.
“Bullshit obstructionism”? Expecting Trump’s nominees to go through the exact same vetting process Obama put his nominees through willingly, to weed out things like conflicts of interest, ethical issues, and the like, before the senate hearings, now somehow qualifies as “Bullshit obstructionism”?
Interestingly enough, someone who matters quite clearly disagrees with you.
McConnell pledged over the weekend that no nominee would get a full Senate vote before all of their paperwork has been turned in.
He added on Monday after meeting with Trump that “everybody will be properly vetted as they have been in the past.”
Did you just turn into a lawyer or something? Hey Ditka, we’re not calling you out because your procedural politics are wrong. Clearly, the republicans in congress could push Bernie Madoff through as the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau on day one if they were so inclined. We’re criticizing your apparent lack of care that they may, in fact, do something quite analogous to that. We’re pointing out that it’s insanely hypocritical to obstruct and deny for 8 years as hard as they possibly could, then turn around and refuse to do even the most basic of vetting of themselves once they have power.
And yes, it is a tragedy that, after years of a republican minority being able to bring politics to an absolute standstill, the democrats made the decision to nip that in the bud, and the republicans immediately took advantage of that in unreasonable, unethical ways. It’s a crying shame that only one party can be expected to govern like adults, and that we have the choice between the republicans obstructing everything constantly when out of power or acting unethically with impunity while in power. But for some reason, I don’t think that’s your opinion. You seem glad that the GOP is pushing for senate hearings before the nominees have even been through the Office of Government Ethics. I have no idea why that could even be the case, other than pure schadenfreude and “MY SIDE WINS FUCK YOU”, and I sincerely hope that’s not the full extent of your thinking on these issues.
The hearing on Betsy DeVil…pardon, DeVos…has been postponed.
Perhaps noteworthy, Ditka:
The whole article is worth a read, but this part in particular is telling:
Emphasis mine. Now, if McConnell was interested in acting in the benefit of good governance, he could reintroduce the filibuster, under the condition that the democrats not undergo such brazen misgovernance and overinflation of their own power, and the threat of taking it away again if they abuse it in the way that, um, he did.
Of course, he won’t do that.
But it’s nice to dream.
Yes, of course he won’t. It would be silly for Republicans to play with one set of rules (Reid’s no-filibuster) when they’re in the minority and then turn around and reverse that when they’re in the majority, with reasonable confidence that once they’re back in the minority the Dems would just re-nuke the filibuster. It would be political malpractice.
No, political malpractice would be filibustering any nominee made to certain government posts for the sake of invalidating those government posts when you don’t have the political clout to do it the right way. :rolleyes: Seriously, can’t you see how disgustingly cynical this is? The republicans spent eight years flouting every possible rule in the senate and house to get their way. Then, when the democrats changed the rules in direct response to ploys like that, upon gaining power the republicans immediately turned it around and abused those rule changes.
Can you see the difference between “The democrats can’t have the filibuster because then they might filibuster nominees who haven’t been through ethical review” and “The republicans can’t have the filibuster because they might use it to invalidate the National Labor Relations Board”?
In my view, the Democrats are the ones that started this escalating war over Presidential nominations all the way back with Bork. Specifically regarding the filibuster: they abused it with President Bush. Do you remember the “Gang of 14”? That was organized to avert Republicans going nuclear on the filibuster back in 2005 because Democrats’ abuse of the filibuster against judges that were qualified. Do names like Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, William Pryor, etc. ring a bell? If they do, it’s probably because the Democrats organized filibusters against them, and not because they hadn’t yet had been through ethical review. Your view that it was only Republicans that have violated norms is, in my eyes, rubbish.
Oh, Christ. Bork again. You honestly don’t see the difference between a nomination getting voted down by the full Senate and one party refusing to consider a nomination? Bork got his full vote in the Senate (after being voted down 9-5 in committee) and lost 58-42. Two Democrats (Hollings, Boren) voted for him while six Republicans (Chaffee, Packwood, Specter, Stafford, Warner, Weicker) voted against. So it wasn’t exactly a party line vote. You can argue that they didn’t vote the way you would have but you can’t argue that he didn’t get a vote. So the Democrats gave Reagan’s nominee one hell of a lot more consideration than Republican’s did for Garland.
No, they didn’t. There is no major difference between a vote with a pre-determined outcome and announcing in advance that you won’t vote. The only difference I concede is that actually casting a vote is an act that can be used in future campaigns against the legislator, so I agree that the Democrats against Bork had perhaps slightly more courage than their current GOP brethern. But it’s a tiny difference; the opposition is still free to attack a sitting GOP senator with the charge that they acquiesced in Garland’s shut-out.
So if you want to insist that Bork was treated better than Garland, go right ahead. But since your opposition does not agree, and since it’s our perception that informs our actions, your insistence is unavailing.
There’s a difference between voting announcing you won’t vote. There’s a difference between saying “we disapprove of this guy” and “we disapprove of you even making the nomination”. What Republicans said was that Obama was only entitled to 3/4 of a term. I’d be fine if the Republicans had just voted party line on Garland, but to take a position that a black president isn’t entitled to do his duty for the full term sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but we were talking about one issue (committee hearing prior to OGE paperwork) and the portion of the article you cited refers to a separate issue (full Senate vote prior to OGE paperwork). McConnell doesn’t seem to disagree with me on the first issue. I don’t disagree with him on the second one.
BTW, just in case anyone was interested, you can listen to the Sessions hearing here (live right now): Attorney General Confirmation Hearing, Day 1 Part 1 | C-SPAN.org
ETA: it’s pretty boring, but every now and then a protester starts shouting some gibberish to liven things up.
Bless their hearts.
Your opposition doesn’t agree that it’s a “tiny difference.” It’s a huge difference. Your instance to the contrary is unavailing.