Senate Dems changed the filibuster rules for appointments

[Wingshooter]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/senate-nears-possible-vote-on-curbing-filibusters/


Senate Democrats bowled over Republicans on Thursday to win approval for a highly controversial rule change which would limit the GOP's ability to block nominees, in a move Republicans called a "raw power grab."
"It's a sad day in the history of the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said after the vote.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., moving quickly following days of speculation, used the so-called "nuclear option" to pass the change. Typically, major changes like this take 67 votes, but he did it with just a simple majority.
With Republicans fuming, the change weakens the power of the minority to stall nominations for top positions. Instead of needing 60 votes to break a filibuster, the change means Democrats will now need just 51.
Republicans charged that Democrats were merely trying to shift focus away from ObamaCare with the move.
"Today we face a real crisis in the confirmation process, a crisis concocted by the Democrat majority to distract attention from the ObamaCare disaster and, in the process, consolidate more power than any majority has had in more than 200 years," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement immediately following the historic vote.
"It sounds to me like Harry Reid is trying to change the subject and if I were taking all the incoming fire that he's taking over Obamacare, I'd try to change the subject too," House Speaker John Boehner said.
Reid won approval for the change on a 52-48 vote.
Regardless of Reid's underlying motivations, the vote Thursday marks a major change in Senate rules. The filibuster, for better or worse, has been a defining feature of the Senate for decades. While this makes the Senate one of the slowest-moving legislative bodies in the world, it also prevents legislation and appointments from moving too fast.
The vote on Thursday vastly reduces the power of the minority to stall nominations and makes it easier for federal judges to get lifetime appointments.
Even Democrats have supported the right to filibuster in the past. The late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said in 2010 that changing the rules would "destroy the uniqueness of this institution."
"In the hands of a tyrannical majority and leadership, that kind of emasculation of the cloture rule would mean that minority rights would cease to exist in the U.S. Senate," he said.
The change applies to nominations for federal court and other top positions, though not for the Supreme Court.
Reid got the ball rolling on the rule change late Thursday morning. Frustrated by Republicans' stonewalling of numerous Obama nominees, he cast the shift as vital to the Senate's survival.
"The Senate is a living thing, and to survive it must change," he said on the Senate floor.
But the maneuver itself threatens to make the bitter atmosphere on the Hill even more toxic, imperiling the prospect for future agreement on everything from immigration to the budget.
McConnell charged that Reid's attempt proves the Democrats are willing to "do and say just about anything" to get their way.
The change is the most far-reaching to filibuster rules since 1975, when a two-thirds requirement for cutting off filibusters against legislation and all nominations was eased to the 60-vote level. It delivers a major blow the GOP's ability to thwart Obama in making appointments, though Republicans have promised the same fate would await Democrats whenever the GOP recaptures the White House and Senate control.
The clash occurred as Democrats have grown increasingly irritated by the GOP's derailing of Obama's selections for top jobs, including three picks for pivotal judgeships in recent days.
Republicans say they are weary of repeated Democratic threats to rewrite the rules. They say Democrats similarly obstructed some of President George W. Bush's nominees and argue that the D.C. Circuit's caseload is too low, which Democrats reject.
Nomination fights are not new in the Senate, but as the hostility has grown the two sides have been edging toward a collision for much of this year.
The latest battle is over Obama's choices to fill three vacancies at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Since Halloween, GOP filibusters have derailed the president's nominations of District Judge Robert L. Wilkins, law professor Cornelia Pillard and attorney Patricia Millett for those jobs, which are lifelong.
The D.C. Circuit Court is viewed as second only to the Supreme Court in power because it rules on disputes over White House and federal agency actions. The circuit's eight judges are divided evenly between Democratic and Republican presidential appointees.

[MacGyver]

Only 22 current Democrats in the Senate have ever been in minority.  Funny how this might be used against them in a year or so.

 

I can't figure out the motivation for them to do this right now.

 

Further evidence that the DNC has never met a sure thing they can't find a way to screw up.

[jcoosi]

I think they are fearing unintended consequences from all the latest fiasco's and they are trying to stack the lower courts.

[mikegideon]

Maybe they figure if Obama is allowed to perform his "magic", he can dig himself out of the crapper. I'm thinking the more he gets away with, the lower he's gonna sink.

[Luke E.]

 Pretty much what Mike said, they already have enough rope to hang themselves from but figure if they get enough slack they might can tie some loops to grasp onto so they don't hang by their necks. If only we had a media that was willing to do it's job. If we had that one thing... we would be in a totally different situation. Not only would Obama never have been relected but his lies would have been uncovered and broadcast during the beginning of his first term limiting what he would have been able to get done. There's a lot of things that would make our situation better, hell almost anything would be better but I think a non partisan media is at the top of that list. They are supposed to be our link and without that we are steered where ever they want us. This deal should never have been allowed to happen.

[leroy]

Unhappily (...for the democrats, at this juncture...) there will be another election in 2014... I'm kinda like Mac; i wonder how the democrats will like the simple majority rule when they are in the minority?... Havin said that; i think Harry Reid is an angry old hoodlum that has coveted the power he is wielding now; and is fond of the "...it's my way or the highway..." mantra... He could give a damn less about the future... For him, the future ends when he goes to his sorry reward... At the end of the day, its not about governing, or political maneuvering; its about power, man....

 

leroy

Edited November 21, 2013 by leroy

[DennyB]

Sadly, I believe our elections are probably as corrupt as any in the world. I can't imagine Reid (who was reelected after a mysterious power outage in Las Vegas) would do such a thing without the king's guarantee that the libs would keep the Senate. Just another reason to abolish the 17th amendment.

[RED333]

Good way to take light from the ACA.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A bad precedent for the Democrats to set if they wish to continue taking. That taking this year might hurt them next year. I already thought

it would, but this helps them lose senate seats. They must think they are going to appoint some judges this year. I think they are thinking

a bit too short term. That's a power grab. I wonder which will be next?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good way to take light from the ACA.

I don't think so. That's the bandaid that won't quit hurting. When Democrats sign up and see how much more they will pay for their

Utopia, there may be fewer Democrats.

[MacGyver]

Cooler heads on both sides of the aisle have prevailed for a long time on the so called "nuclear rule."  This really is an indication that things are going off the rails.

 

It was 52-48 with three democrats joining all 45 republicans in dissent.  When they're moaning about it a couple of years from now, someone needs to remind them that they passed it straight along party lines.

[Guest Riciticky]

I'm not quite sure I understand all of this , but I begining to think I don't like it. I listened to Rush today but still don't understand how they can do this?

[Chucktshoes]

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a “procedural gimmick.”

The Websters dictionary defines “gimmick” as – - “an ingenious new scheme or angle.” No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new.

The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.

In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.”

In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate – and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.

Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.

– 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule.

– 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.

A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.

Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?

Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?”

“To cool it,” Jefferson replied.

To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

In fact, my colleague from Georgia – Senator Isakson – recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government.

The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied… “no….we have the secret weapon called the ‘filibuster.’”

In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: “If there were ever a reason for optimism… it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.”

And he was right.

I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours.

There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.

In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy.

In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.

Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes.

Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed – - Civil Rights advocates met the burden.

And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option.

For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.

At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important.

He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay – as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.

But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.

Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House.

In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate.

If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.

Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary.

Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington.

From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people…

To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission…

To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power…

To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House…

Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.

America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.

For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.

They want to do away with the filibuster.

They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.

I doubt that’s true.

 

Harry Reid

May 18, 2005

[RED333]

I'm not quite sure I understand all of this , but I begining to think I don't like it. I listened to Rush today but still don't understand how they can do this?

It was put to a vote, the Dems have the most votes and we lost.

[Garufa]

It was put to a vote, the Dems have the most votes and we lost.

 

Democracy in action.

[jcoosi]

I'm not quite sure I understand all of this , but I begining to think I don't like it. I listened to Rush today but still don't understand how they can do this?

 

Takes 60 votes to break a filibuster now it only takes a simple majority. Since the Dems have majority in senate they have no resistance per say from the minority in the senate now.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And since they changed that rule, wait and see how many others they will change. I remember some woman (in House or Senate?)

who tried the stunt of "deeming" Obamacare passed. It'll just take a little more time.

[leroy]

All:  Interestin read from our buddies at the Legal Insurrection blog:  http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/democrats-nuked-the-ratchet/#more-71465

 

leroy

[Peace]

This makes me rethink my position on Alexander (and Corker).  Unless someone (new) is incredibly electable, or unless Alexander or Corker have a scandal that cannot be overcome, I will most likely vote for them.  They may need to be replaced,... this election cycle, it seems, is not the time.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Peace

[leroy]

This makes me rethink my position on Alexander (and Corker).  Unless someone is incredibly electable, or unless they have a scandal that cannot be overcome, I will most likely vote for them.  They may need to be replaced,... this election cycle, it seems, is not the time.

Peace makes an interesting point here... I just got my monthly rag from alexander; he is sayin and doin (...apparently...) all the "right things" from a conservative perspective.... My guess is that he, in fact, thinks the challenges from the Tea Party are serious enough to modify his stinkin behavior now that more citizens are watchin... I count that a good thing....

 

Keep up the good work Tea Party members!!...

 

leroy

[jacob]

Peace makes an interesting point here... I just got my monthly rag from alexander; he is sayin and doin (...apparently...) all the "right things" from a conservative perspective.... My guess is that he, in fact, thinks the challenges from the Tea Party are serious enough to modify his stinkin behavior now that more citizens are watchin... I count that a good thing....

Keep up the good work Tea Party members!!...

leroy

Doesn't that still kind of play into the whole just telling people what you want them to hear until it doesn't matter (ie bait and switch)??? If he thinks the challenges are viable enough to change his tune isn't that enough of a reflection of his character to get him out and give someone else a chance to prove themselves to their constituents??

I agree with Dolomite on a previous assertion. When you consistently vote for an incumbent, they become more difficult with time to dethrone when they no longer represent the people...The founders recognized this and opined as such in their writings...people where not meant to be elected and serve until death...

[leroy]

jacob:  RE: post #21 above ... I dont disagree... I wuz merely stating what i read and opining that the Tea Party folk were changing behaviors; .....nothin more...

 

No one has been a greater critic of lamar alexander's actions than i have... I would llike to see him go too; but my guess is that he wont go until he decides too... He is a polititian first and foremost....  My guess is that he will pass it on to Bill Haslam ALA the way that the great Howard Baker passed his mantle to lamar... 

 

Politics is, at it's core, a dirty business; and no one on either side of the aisle is dirtier than lamar.... He's vindictive, overbearing, headstrong, well-connected, and smart... That is a formidable combination... My advise is that ya better enjoy whatever lamar is doin and keep the pressure up via the Tea Party...  Ya aint likely to outst him... That is the sad reality of politics...

 

leroy

 

[MacGyver]

Alexander and Corker have the business money in Tennessee as long as they want it, and that's going to be a big hurdle for any challenger to overcome.  Their constituency at the end of the day is the money that elected them.

 

I won't pull the lever for either of them again.  Period. 

[jacob]

I see your point and didn't want to seem inflammatory....would be nice to see term limits installed for congressional seats....problem is the voter already has the power of term limits but refuse to use it for their own selfish ends...

[Chucktshoes]

Alexander and Corker have the business money in Tennessee as long as they want it, and that's going to be a big hurdle for any challenger to overcome. Their constituency at the end of the day is the money that elected them.

I won't pull the lever for either of them again. Period.

I would. Well, I would if the lever opened a trap door...