The US Senate has just voted, 52-48, to eliminate the filibuster for most executive and judicial nominations requiring the Senate’s advice and consent. From now on, only a majority vote will be required to confirm agency nominations and most judges. Nominations to the Supreme Court, as well as ordinary legislation, are still subject to the old rules.
To which one can only say, it’s about time. Hard to disagree with Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s take:
“The need for change is so, so very obvious. It is clearly visible,” Mr. Reid said as the Senate convened Thursday morning. “It is time to get the Senate working.”
Yes, this will mean that when the GOP takes over the Senate and the White House, which will probably happen eventually, it’ll be harder for Democrats to obstruct a Republican president’s nominees. But that’s probably OK. For better or worse, the basis of the Constitution is majority rule. Filibusters were never part of the original plan – they arose out of clever Senators later figuring out how to game the system. It’s high time they were reined in.
I’ve long defended the use of the filibuster from it’s opponents with the logic that it helped us defeat Bush nominations in certain circumstances. That said, this is a fairly sensible way to reform the filibuster and prevent it from abuse. This is much different than the proposal Frist had, which would have eliminated it’s usage almost entirely when it came to confirmations. In this case, Reid will enable judicial and sub-cabinet level agency heads to be confirmed by a simple up or down vote. Under this, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owens would be on appeals benches now, and that is ok. I am convinced that if we could defeat Bork on an up or down vote, we could defeat extremists like that again. And the option for filibustering another Ashcroft at confirmation or a SCOTUS nominee is still there.
Now if only we could get a truly talking filibuster in place for advise and consent nominations and basic legislation we can really undo a lot of the damage. I expect the electorate will reward an end to gridlock, it’s the obstruction itself rather than the ‘lack of bipartisanship’ that the American people are sick and tired of.
Harry Reid waited way too long to do this. The fact of the matter is that the Rs in the Senate have abused their power to try to weaken Obama’s presidency.
Even if the Democrats hadn’t done this, the Republicans would not have hesitated to change filibuster rules the second they took over. And then they’d stick their tongues out and yell, “Suckas!” They only kept it in 2005 because Democrats promised not to use it, even for the likes of Sam Alito.
it then and claimed the moral high ground. Even if they couldn’t negotiate, they could have played it for maximum advantage with an unpopular White House.
Better late than never.
They’ve tried that strategy. At the beginning of the Obama Presidency, Republican legislators were frequent dinner guests. Didn’t do any good. When the ACA was being hammered out, Republicans were encouraged to be part of designing the bill. Word from on high was for Republicans to stay away from the ACA to make it a Democrat-only bill. The few Republicans who “negotiated” refused to accept “yes” for an answer and essentially functioned as obstructionists.
The GOP has decided that they, not Democrats, represent “real” America and that negotiation with Democrats is at best a vice and at worst immoral.
It’s as if, Mark, you want to stage the play wherein Republicans are invited to negotiate, they only say obviously unreasonable things, the negotiations break down, and the unreasonable things can be used for negative advertizing. The problem is there is no one to cast in the roles for Act One of that play.
Except I’m talking about prior to 2008.
Start out with a token offer to reform the filibuster and be rebuffed. Starting from a position of weakness would make the Democrats look more principled. Instead the Democrats preserved the filibuster during Bush’s tenure by not using it very much. And the GOP would have gone nuclear if it suited their purposes.
On the other hand, I don’t think the filibuster change is going to matter much to the average voter. It might bother the Very Serious People, but their votes don’t count for much and the authority of their voices diminishes everyday.
A win for democracy, yes, but also a win for the judiciary and the executive branch: each of which has been criminally understaffed since the Clinton administration when the practice of holding up nominees took widespread hold. The Senate has a lot of work ahead, but that frees up a lot of workers for the executive branch and the judiciary.
If I were in Obamas position, I’d go full-court press on nominees from now until next November… maybe we’ll get a fully functioning government outta this…
It is a shame that the senate squandered 5 and a half years of Obama’s presidency under the old way – there is no going back now if/when Republicans take over the Senate, they will not agree to the old rules and will have the benefit of
Perhaps an even likelier outcome of this is more one-upmanship, that if/when Republicans gain the senate, if there is a Democratic president, Republicans will probably not approve any nominees. That will be a true constitutional crisis.
I like the move, but Reid should have waited till after 2014 election. Harry should have requested this in 2002 when Bush had trouble with his nominees. Even John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy attempted to filibuster Sam Alito, but JK and TK could find enuff Dems to go along.
Say bye-bye to filibustering any Supreme Court nominees if the Republicans control the WH and Senate. That’s a promise made by Chuck Grassley yesterday.
But I’m happy, the Prez should be able to pick who he wants and get an up or down vote. Dems will never be able to filibuster a John Bolton to the UN or qualified conservatives to any court. And vice-versa.
John Bolton failed to get out of a Foreign Relations Committee vote and would have lost an up or down vote in the Senate which is why he was recess appointed. Voinovich, Chafee, and Hagel, with the behind the scenes prodding of Powell and Rice, flipped on the nomination.
Also name a qualified conservative the Democrats did not send to the Supreme Court? Perhaps Robert Bork, but we could argue his atrocious civil rights record was disqualifying. Plenty of conservative Republicans thought so.
Everyone deserves, IMO, like John Bolton, an up and down vote in front of the whole Senate. Nobody should be bottled up b/c the majority party on a committee won’t let the full Senate vote. I thought Miguel Estrada was held up in committee?
I thought Bork did get a full Senate vote, but lost? Yes, Kennedy did a great job smearing him, just like they did John Tower and Clarence Thomas. But by preventing Estrada a full vote on the Senate Floor, they stopped a future Supreme Court pick in 2005 b/c W. likely would have selected him over Alito.
Yes, the Democratic Party should have acted sooner. But the Republican Party shouldn’t have abused it. Let’s not exonerate the perps here.
I think elimination of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees would make very little difference from the Democratic perspective. After all, Democrats have not filibustered any recent Republican SCOTUS nominees. Even arch-conservative Scalia was confirmed by a 96-0 vote, for example. Bork went down in flames, but it wasn’t because of the filibuster — he lost a straight-up vote. Thomas was confirmed to the Court on a tight vote — but he wouldn’t have been able to get through a filibuster if Democrats had launched one. But they didn’t.
Grassley’s “threat” is therefore pretty meaningless, in my opinion.
This move is significant not only because it allows the president to more effectively determine who will staff his own executive branch (and because it bypasses some frankly laughable Republican reasoning for not allowing Obama to fill D.C. Circuit vacancies), but because it sets us down the likely path of the elimination of the filibuster altogether.
And good riddance. The increased prominence of divided government in recent American history already makes our political system very difficult to hold politicians accountable for their policy decisions, and the rise of the filibuster made this political accountability problem far worse. Without the filibuster, it makes it clearer who is responsible for the failure to deal with pressing national issues.
I guess Harry was against filibuster reform, before he was for it. What else did Harry say in 2005, shortly after George W. Bush was re-elected.
“Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.”
“The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.”
“It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.”
“filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check”
“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.”
That was Mitch McConnell a few years ago.
We could do this all day. Useless exercise.
that Senate GOP obstruction in the Obama years has been far, far worse than anything the Senate Dems ever conceived of before. Example:
if you total all the executive filibusters from 1953 to 2004, Republicans blocked Obama more in his first term alone. Pathetic.
I think Harry and Obama are reading the tea leaves, and are kissing the Senate good-bye next Nov, so they must get any and all judges rammed through, just like they did Obamacare.
If Obama was a leader, he would appoint a few Bush nominees who were thwarted by Dems late in his term, just as Bush did by renominating Clinton hold-overs in 2001.
This move could very well leave an unchecked Republican Prez and Congress in 2017. Dont complain if that happens.
that’s a bizarre statement.
North Carolina seat vacated by James Dickson Phillips, Jr. – Terrence Boyle, followed by Robert J. Conrad (Boyle was nominated by President Bush in May 2001. After waiting six years, President Bush withdrew his nomination January 2007, making this 2001-2007 nomination the longest court of appeals nomination never processed by the Senate; Robert Conrad was nominated July 2007, but the Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democratic 110th Congress; judgeship later filled by Obama nominee James A. Wynn, Jr.)
South Carolina seat vacated by William Walter Wilkins – Steve A. Matthews (judgeship later filled by North Carolina Obama nominee Albert Diaz)
Virginia seat vacated by H. Emory Widener – William J. Haynes, II, followed by E. Duncan Getchell, followed by Glen E. Conrad (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Barbara Milano Keenan)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Mississippi seat, converted from a Louisiana seat vacated by Henry Anthony Politz – Charles W. Pickering, followed by Michael B. Wallace, followed by Leslie H. Southwick (Pickering was filibustered by Senate Democrats and eventually withdrew his nomination; there was so much Democratic resistance to Wallace’s nomination that it too was withdrawn; and Southwick was only confirmed due to the efforts of Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein)
Texas seat vacated by William Lockhart Garwood – Priscilla Owen (Owen was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Michigan seat vacated by James L. Ryan – Henry Saad, followed by Raymond Kethledge (Saad was filibustered by Senate Democrats; Kethledge was only confirmed after a deal in which failed Clinton nominee Helene White was allowed to replace Bush nominee Stephen J. Murphy III as a Sixth Circuit nominee)
Michigan seat vacated by Richard Suhrheinrich – David W. McKeague (McKeague was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Michigan seat vacated by Damon Keith – Richard Allen Griffin (Griffin was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Michigan seat vacated by Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy – Susan Bieke Neilson, followed by Stephen J. Murphy III, followed by failed Clinton nominee Helene White (Neilson was only confirmed three months prior to her death after a four-year battle over her nomination; Murphy’s nomination was replaced by that of failed Clinton nominee Helene White at the behest of Democratic Michigan senator Carl Levin)
Ohio seat vacated by David Aldrich Nelson – Jeffrey S. Sutton (Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democratic 107th Congress and he was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the house in 2003)
Ohio seat vacated by Alan Norris – Deborah L. Cook (Senate Democrats refused to process her nomination during the Democratic 107th Congress and she was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the house in 2003)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Indiana seat vacated by Kenneth F. Ripple – Philip P. Simon (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee David Hamilton)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
California seat vacated by James R. Browning – Carolyn Kuhl (Kuhl was filibustered by Senate Democrats and eventually withdrew her nomination; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Sandra Segal Ikuta)
California seat vacated by Stephen S. Trott – N. Randy Smith (judgeship still open; Smith was later confirmed to the Ninth Circuit when he was renominated for an Idaho seat)
Idaho seat vacated by Thomas G. Nelson – William Gerry Myers III (Myers was filibustered by Senate Democrats; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee N. Randy Smith)
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Oklahoma seat vacated by Stephanie Kulp Seymour – James H. Payne, followed by Jerome A. Holmes (Payne withdrew his nomination after allegations made by liberal organizations created the appearance of “extraordinary circumstances” which would not have allowed his confirmation under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Jerome A. Holmes)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Alabama seat vacated by Emmett Ripley Cox – William H. Steele, followed by William H. Pryor (Senate Democrats refused to process Steele’s nomination during the Democratic 107th Congress and his nomination was withdrawn; Pryor was filibustered by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Miguel Estrada, to seat vacated by Patricia Wald (Estrada was nominated May 2001, but was filibustered by Senate Democrats and withdrew his nomination after waiting over two years in September 2003; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Thomas B. Griffith, who was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
John Roberts, to seat vacated by James L. Buckley (Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democratic 107th Congress and he was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the Senate in 2003)
Janice Rogers Brown, to seat vacated by Stephen F. Williams (Brown was filibustered by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Brett Kavanaugh, to seat vacated by Laurence Silberman (Kavanaugh was initially stalled by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Peter Keisler, to seat vacated by John Roberts (President Bush nominated him June 2006, but Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the 109th and Democratic 110th Congress; judgeship still open)
Others who were considered for nomination[edit]
In the spring of 2001, then-Representative Christopher Cox and lawyer Peter Keisler were both considered for federal appellate judgeships. Cox was considered for a California seat on the Ninth Circuit and Keisler for a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. Both withdrew themselves from consideration before a nomination could be made because their homestate Democratic senators objected to them due to their perceived conservatism.[22] The California seat that Cox had been considered for was eventually filled by Bush nominee Carlos T. Bea. In 2005, Cox was nominated and confirmed as Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a position he held until the end of the Bush administration in January 2009. The Maryland seat that Keisler had been considered for was to remain open the entirety of Bush’s presidency with the failed nominations of Claude Allen and Rod J. Rosenstein. In 2006, Keisler was unsuccessfully nominated to a seat on the D.C. Circuit. In 2007, after the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, Keisler became the Acting Attorney General until the confirmation of Michael Mukasey. He left the Department of Justice in March 2008 to return to private practice.
Failed district court nominees[edit]
Bush nominated 23 people for 23 current or future federal district judgeships who never were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.[23] Like the appellate court nominations mentioned above, many of these nominees were blocked by Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by the Democrats four out the eight years that Bush was in office. Twenty-one of these twenty-three nominees were blocked in the Democratic 110th Congress. Republicans claimed at the time that the Democrats were trying to keep these district court positions open for a future Democratic president to fill. Eventually, Bush declined to make nominations for 23 other current or future federal district judgeships in the 110th Congress.
Of the 23 federal district judgeship vacancies with actual nominees in place, 2 eventually were filled with a different Bush nominee, 14 so far have been filled with Barack Obama nominees, 4 remain open, 1 became moot when the district judge decided not to retire and 2 never ended up becoming vacant because the district judge who had it never received confirmation to be elevated to an appellate court. In addition, two of Bush’s 23 failed district court nominees, Oregon’s Marco Hernandez and Illinois’ John J. Tharp,[24] were subsequently renominated by Obama to federal district judgeships. They both were confirmed in the 112th Congress.
The failed Bush district court nominees:
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Lincoln D. Almond (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee John J. McConnell, Jr.)
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
Mary Donohue, followed by Thomas Marcelle (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Mae D’Agostino)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Carolyn P. Short (judgeship was to become vacant when Judge Gene E. K. Pratter was elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit but Pratter was forced to withdraw due to Democratic opposition and was replaced by Judge Paul S. Diamond.)
Carolyn P. Short (judgeship was to become vacant when Judge Paul S. Diamond was elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit but Diamond never was confirmed to that post before Bush’s presidency ended.)
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Colm F. Connolly (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Leonard Stark)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Thomas Alvin Farr (judgeship still open)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
David J. Novak (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee John A. Gibney, Jr.)
United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
William J. Powell (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Gina Marie Groh)
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
David R. Dugas (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Brian Anthony Jackson)
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
J. Richard Barry (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Carlton W. Reeves)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Daniel P. Ryan (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Stephen Joseph Murphy III)
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Gustavus Adolphus Puryear (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Kevin Hunter Sharp)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
John J. Tharp (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Sharon J. Coleman) (Nominated by Barack Obama on November 10, 2011 to a different seat on the Northern District and confirmed on May 14, 2012)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Timothy G. Dugan (judgeship vacancy became moot when Judge Rudolph T. Randa decided not to retire in January 2009)
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
J. Mac Davis (judgeship still open)
United States District Court for the Central District of California
James Edward Rogan (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Jacqueline H. Nguyen)
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Frederick W. Rohlfing III (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee J. Michael Seabright)
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez (Nominated by Barack Obama on July 14, 2010 to the same position and confirmed on February 7, 2011)[25]
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Gregory E. Goldberg (judgeship still open)
United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
Richard H. Honaker (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Nancy D. Freudenthal)
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
William F. Jung (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Charlene Edwards Honeywell)
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jeffrey Adam Rosen (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee James E. Boasberg)
Michael E. O’Neill (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Amy Berman Jackson)
Stop copying and pasting conservative articles without citations-a link would suffice. This Democrat is on record saying Estrada and Owens deserved up or down votes, and I’m also on record stating that the burden of voting down a nominee for cabinet or SCOTUS should be quite high. I’d have voted for Roberts, particularly because he replaced another conservative.
Also the Gang of 14 shows what happens when the minority and majority work together to avoid an impasse.
Frist proposed a harsher nuclear option to bring Democrats to the table and they held their side of the bargain for the remainder of Bush’s term. McConnell hasn’t made an agreement with Reid he didn’t break. Mel Watt was the first sitting member of Congress not to be confirmed for a sub cabinet executive post since 1845 (!), and that is in spite of his having the support of conservative Republicans like Richard Burr. Marco Rubio filibustered appellate nominees that he himself has advanced through the Senate earlier. They have grossly abused the advise and consent clause.
They started it all, poisoned the well.
Obama and Reid should learn to get along with people on the other side. It’s called “Leadership”.
What clearer indication could you possible give that you are not the “independent” you claim to be.
As decent honorable people, trying to serve their country, then you can “easily” see the injustice the Demicrats inflicted upon them. Even Christopher finally admitted how wrong it was.
Why do I believe most here were cheering Reid, Schumar, Leahy, Rodham-Clinton, and Obama, as they filibusted GWB appointees like it was going out of style.
My independence is as clear as the sky is blue, it shouldn’t be
done to any court appointees. But the time to rail against this issue is when you are in the minority party. And Frist never detonated the Senste like Reid just did. Reid just awoke a sleeping giant, just wait.
That has been my view all along and I believe the same applies to many others here.
because even when they’re are links they don’t support what he posts. Consequently, we should regard the above comment as no more informative than an excerpt from the phone book.
Your lengthy blockquote simply helps illustrate why today’s elimination of the filibuster for lower court judges is necessary — with the filibuster, we’ve increasingly had a situation where an ever-larger percentage of the federal judiciary has sat vacant because nominees are blocked by a minority of Senators.
So I’m not sure what you are arguing, or why you are complaining about Reid’s move.
He believes in nothing himself. Like most Republicans these days, he simply believes that anything Democrats do must automatically be bad. It saves him from having to actually think about any issue.
If it were not for Google, Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V, Dan would have nothing to say.
Are the same people back in in 2001-2006, screaming at the top of their lungs, how wonderful the filibuster rule is. I can’t stand serial hypocrisy. Even Sen Obama sang its praise, and he was only a senator long enuff to enjoy a cup of coffee, before he left running for POTUS.
The filibuster made sure there was some bipartisanship. I agree, it should be amended, perhaps allow just 3 per year, unless one wants to stand all day. But this move, will end all filibusters, the Rep will do,away with it,,if and when , they get control.
Reid should have waited till after the 2014 election, not now, when Obamacare is crash and burning.
So do YOU like the filibuster or not? You’re not making an argument — all you’re doing is throwing partisan bombs into the conversation. (After all, Democrats hardly have a monopoly on “serial hypocrisy.”)
This isn’t even remotely true: if it were, then we’d never, ever, see the instance of a fully functioning Senator voting to filibuster the very bill he/she wrote and sponsored. THAT would never happen if the filibuster, in any way shape or form, promoted even the slightest hint of bipartisanship. Yet we’ve seen that multiple times…. mostly by the GOP. Furthermore, if the filibuster allowed for greater bipartisanship we see more of the instance in which a single senator was filibustering against the wishes of his/her own party and that is incredibly rare.
The very term ‘bipartisanship’ is predicated upon strong individual senators less beholden to party loyalty (for the sake of loyalty( than to the job they’be been elected to do.
Now, without the filibuster (mostly) gone individual Senators may rise to the occasion with one less enabler of party loyalty. That, at least, is the hope.
No matter how much we worked with Democrats, it was never enuff, you wanted him to be 1000% on your side.
So when Rand Paul filibustered Obama’s pick for CIA, John Brennan, asking if the govt. can drone a US citizen on US soil, you say now that can’t occur. I want people like Rand Paul to filibuster a nominee who fails to answer his question on droning a US citizen without due process. Apparently, ram the nomination though on “majority vote”.
…and yes, in that case he had some liberals cheering him on. The problem with the filibuster isn’t the long-windedness; it’s that too often people skip the long-windedness part and opt for simply threatening to which ties up the Senate with no accountability. At least Paul spoke about his objections.
You keep insisting you are not a Republican but an independant. Are you now finally ready to admit you are a Republican, once and for all?
I was on an iPhone at the time and tend to make more typos. It wasn’t a Freudian slip, as you can see, the next word after my typo, began with “W”.
True, I am an independent who will vote Republican, but can easily vote for a Democrat as I have demonstrated. Let me leave you with a quote from Mayor Ed Koch. “If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist”.
Mike, the same goes for voting strict party lines.
Like Hot Lips Houlihan, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This specific reform only refers to sub cabinet positions and the judiciary. Not only could Paul still do a poor filibuster and force a cloture vote under the new rules, what Paul actually did was a talking filibuster which is exactly the kind of strong reform that Jeff Merkeley and other progressives favor and Reid still lacks the courage to introduce. Seriously dude, turn the Fox off once in awhile and read the Times, the Post, the Economist, or even the hack rag Politico which at least gets procedure right.
As for the strawman on civil liberties, I appreciate that when a Democrat nominates a Jack Bauer enthusiast you suddenly recoil at the notion, but I am fairly certain you backed fairly extreme anti-terror measures after the Boston bombing. Some consistency would be nice. You can look at my post expressing extreme reservations about Brennan’s confirmation and disappointment with the President for continuing far too many Bush policies. m
You pushed jconway into attack mode against a fellow BMGer. I don’t think we’ve seen that before.
My wife has called me things that would make the wallpaper turn upward, so I have developed rhino skin over the years.
JC fails to see what we see, the ultimate end of the filibuster rule. Process means something, tradition means something, decorum means something…..at least once upon a time, it did.
Yeah, that was BC (Before Cruz). 😉
The right-wing crazies discarded “process”, “tradition”, and “decorum” a long time ago. This move belatedly acknowledges that and offers hope for the return of those things.
This move ends the cavalier “mail in filibuster” — that wasn’t even a filibuster — for a specific set of nominations. During most of the years of that “process”, “tradition”, and “decorum” you claim to treasure, the filibuster seldomly happened for these position. When it DID, it was because of reasons directly related to the nominee and position.
This Senate GOP has been blocking EVERY nomination for EVERY position, either in order to paralyze the administration (while running out the clock) or to force movement on some unrelated action (effectively taking a political hostage).
Your dismay is either manufactured, duplicitous. It is strikingly uninformed by the “process”, “tradition”, and “decorum” you claim to treasure.
“According to congressional data, former President George W. Bush actually had a lower percentage of circuit court nominees approved during his time in office than Obama.
And when it comes to the amount of time it takes for circuit court nominees to get approved, Bush and Obama are actually in surprisingly close company, with Bush faring slightly worse. (See chart)
Obstruction of judicial nominees first became a regular practice during President Clinton’s time in office, and the amount of time it takes for a nominee to be approved skyrocketed during George W. Bush’s presidency.
According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.
President Obama also didn’t fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved.
For nominees to get approved, under George W. Bush, the number skyrocketed to 277 days. Obama has fared slightly better than Bush, with his nominees taking 225.5 days to get approved”.
As I pointed out, the Dems love playing the victim, even though they are the perpetrators.
http://news.yahoo.com/are-republicans-really-blocking-obama-s-judicial-nominees-at-‘unprecedented–levels-001414638.html
David- there is a nice chart in the article, would you image it for all to see?
I don’t believe a word DFW wrote. Nor should anyone else.
With a significant track record of getting things wrong, this is not a contribution to a discussion.
I’ve been a little harsh in our disagreements lately, I hope you don’t think I go into attack mode too often.
What could be more pathetic than to spend your entire time in Congress doing absolutely nothing other than trying to prevent the President from governing? The Republican Party at this point stands for absolutely nothing other than lowering taxes, imposing right-wing Christian morals on everyone except themselves, and giving away goodies to their Corporate sponsors. Nothing else.
They spend all their time trying to kill their own healthcare concept because it was a Democrat who actually enacted it and have yet to come up with even a vague plan to replace it.
So good riddance to a bad Senate rule. I am totally fine with letting future presidents of either party be able to get their appointees accepted with a simple majority of the Senate.
Did they have no agenda during that time?
You still haven’t provided the citation as asked. Just a wall of text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies
HAPPY?!
Yes, at least you acknowledged what was done to President George W. Bush, was wrong. I wished Reid and Obama and the rest of them said the same thing.
just as I said.
The Republican Party has no actual solution to any problem other than to lower taxes.
Now that they don’t control both houses and don’t control the Presidency they have absolutely no agenda other than to obstruct the President.
BTW, with every such comment you further demolish your false claim of being an “independent”.
He was factually wrong about the filibuster being rooted in the Constitution, which makes zero reference to it. The rest of it only applies to a traditional “talking filibuster” which has been pretty rare. He’s also wrong about the Founders not wanting a single party to be in control. In fact they were hoping (naively it seems in retrospect) that parties would not form at all.
It’s clear that some Founding Fathers were hoping that parties wouldn’t form at all, but is there any evidence that their hope was shared by many, most, or all Founding Fathers(tm)?
Washington warned against them in his farewell address. The Federalist Papers also claim that factions would be safeguarded against and imply that’s a good thing. So yes, given that this is my area I am comfortable with the statement.
Dan, just look at the numbers. What they have done during Obama’s presidency is unprecedented. The Rs have done what they have done just because Obama is Obama. They hate him. McConnell said that making Obama a one-term president was “their number one priority.” Is that leadership? They are perfect willing to damage the country if they can harm Obama in the process.
Da whirred on da net is that Dems have stupidly caused gridlock. Even the Boston Globe ran a dumb piece with that head.
Bovine feces, kiddies. The Dems in the Senate finally got up on their hind legs. They didn’t cause or foster gridlock. They said, “Enough!”
That Globe piece is grossly deceptive, yet another Republican opinion piece dishonestly labeled as “news”.
Let’s begin with the bogus headline (“Democrats curtail Senate filibusters: Long-threatened ‘nuclear option’ clears way for votes on nominees; chamber’s partisan gap likely to widen”)
Say WHAT? What planet does the headline writer live on? Here are some more accurate (and non-partisan) headlines:
“Senate eliminates filibusters on most nominees” (Washington Post)
“SENATE VOTE CURBS FILIBUSTER POWER TO STALL NOMINEES” (New York Times)
The Globe’s sub-head is at best superfluous — the final clause (“chamber’s partisan gap likely to widen”) flagrantly emphasizes a GOP threat.
Here are some examples of rank garbage from the body of the piece (emphasis mine):
“Has eroded significicantly”??? Are you frigging KIDDING me? What’s with the passive voice — has non-existent global warming caused a river to run through the Senate, washing away collegiality? The plain truth is that the GOP in general and Mitch McConnell in particular has used the filibuster as an assault rifle aimed at the political heart of Barack Obama — over and over. The “partisan bickering” has been a flagrant and relentless attack directed at Barack Obama — Mr. McConnell famously promised this at the start of the Obama presidency, and he’s kept his promise.
Again with the deceptive passive voice. “Preventing cooperation”? Has there been ANY “cooperation” from the GOP? This is the same party that SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT a few short weeks ago. “Cooperation”, to these thugs and bullies, means “Do what I say, NOW”.
No elaboration from the reports about the role the GOP played in this decision?
This article reads like an assembly of GOP press releases and talking points. It is yet another shameful embarrassment to the Boston Globe.
I want to know which three “Democrats” voted against the rule change.
I know you’re being rhetorical, but I have unpleasant memories of being called a traitor by Republicans, and I have never forgiven them for it.
Ok, I agree, “traitor” is over the top. Please allow me to walk that back.
It’s just that I feel as though I have been betrayed over and over by own party as the right-wingers have destroyed the government. I would have drummed Joe Lieberman out of the caucus almost at once.
I want to know who these three guys are and why they they voted as they did. Is there a list?
Sen. Levin said “”Changing the rules, in violation of the rules, by a simple majority vote is not a one-time action,” Levin said on the Senate floor. “If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules that bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation.”
All legislation, including Obamacare, I hope……
I strongly disagree with Mr. Levin. In my view, when the rules as they are lead to utter paralysis of the Senate, then those rules need to change. The ACA was passed by the Senate with 60 votes in favor, 39 against. A majority vote should have been all that was needed.
For most of US history, legislation has been determined by majority rule. The right wing has been betraying the nation and the will of the people since Barack Obama was elected President.
Majority rule is and should be the law of the land.
… The “nuclear option”… because everything changes from here on out.
Everything.
Me? I like that. No, check that. I LOVE that everything changes. It’s going to be chaotic and fun to watch and Senators are going to have to be actual Senators rather than drones. I think Mitch McConnel is shitting his britches right now because he doesn’t know how to govern and the filibuster was his fig leaf. Ha.
I don’t know about Prior or Manchin, but Levin is the 3rd in seniority in Democrati majority, and I wouldn’t have to squint too hard to see his vote as old-fashioned protection of his fiefdom…. which might be just rubble now.
Levin, and about a dozen others have been there since the late 70’s or early 80’s. I wonder how much this change will affect their motivation to stay…?
has been there long enough that most of his memories of the Senate are from when it functioned reasonably well. I think he really believes that, given just a little more time (maybe a Friedman or two), things would go back to the way they were, and the old rules would still work well. But the time for that point of view, sadly, has passed.
He voted against it.
If you recall, Scott Brown was elected being the 41st Senator, and to bring back discussion to D.C. Scott will run on this issue, being a bi-partisan person, and Shaheen will be tagged as a hyper-partisan, changing the rules, to help Obama, who gave us Obamacare, built on a foundation of quicksand.
n/t
I tweeted this yesterday, but it would be sweet justice if one of the unfilibustered judicial nominees later ruled that Gitmo has to be closed.
but only as long as we control the US Senate, I hope we all dopn’t live to regret it. Then again it was originally proposed by the GOP when there was some outside pressure on John Kerry to filibuster Sam Alito’s nomination…
But for the moment, all good news
Elias N
Principle should trump politics and if Dems are being honest we should be more than happy to speak out against nominees and vote as appropriate, but we should not obstruct either.
The filibuster was useful at keeping some awful extremists out of the judiciary during Bush II — and it has been useful in curbing Republican excess. I’m glad the Senate did what it did because the “revolutionary” style of today’s Republicans renders our Republic ungovernable as they have used tactics once reserved for unusual situations as standard practice.
We can rejoice that the Senate Democrats have stepped up to address a sad necessity, but that makes the necessity no less sad.
…the other side can just turn around and call ours extreme and claim the same justification. Even extremists deserve to have their nominations debated on the merits, but ultimately put to an up or down vote following possibly actual filibusters and not just threats. Remember, Robert Bork was not filibustered the way the GOP was today. He was successfully painted as extreme through the actual speech of our own Ted Kennedy – that’s how it’s done.
I find it amusing that the NYtimes and WSJ, along with Democratic and Republican politicos, have flipped on this depending on who’s in charge. It reminds me of the ‘let the people vote’ for Senate in MA, and then when Brown wins “let the Gov appoint again”.
The standard should be that nominees get an up or down vote. The job of educating the public about extremist nominees falls to progressive politicians and Presidents. I am quite certain that social issues kept Mitt Romney away from the presidency, and they will likely keep the next nominee away from there as well, and we are far more likely to get Democrats on the judiciary by using this procedure.
Also at the end of the day are Estrada or Owens on the Circuit Court worse than Alito on SCOTUS-since that was the tradeoff we made. I would happily have had those two in Circuit Court positions for the right to filibuster Alito. A right that is still in place for SCOTUS nominees in a post-nuclear Senate. If having Elizabeth Warren in charge of Consumer Protection now risks Darrell Issa in charge of the SEC under a Republican it’s a tradeoff I’m willing to make. Our party should always favor more, not less, democracy.