The Senate voted Thursday to change its rules to prevent the minority party from filibustering any nominations other than nods to the Supreme Court.
The change was approved after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the “nuclear option,” which allows a change to Senate rules by majority vote.
The 52-48 vote dramatically changes the rules of the Senate and limits the minority party's ability to prevent confirmation of presidential nominees. Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) were the only Democrats to vote against Reid's rules change.
It will allow all three of President Obama's nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to go forward, as well as his nomination of Rep. Mel Watt to lead a housing regulatory agency.
Reid said the change was necessary to get the Senate working again.
“It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Reid said on the Senate floor.
Twinsdads comments:
This is the Democratic way, cast aside the rules to jam legislation down the nations collective throats, for what, some judicial nominations, no this is a complete take over of our government!!
Obama does it with Executive orders, and I am sick and tired of Democrats going around our laws and ways to get their own way. We the people need to rise up and throw these folks out on the street and if you can't see that Democrats are the problem, have driven up the debt and destroyed the country, you are just a ________!!
People started ignoring this fake government on October 1st. Let him confirm all the toadies he likes.
ReplyDeleteNobody's paying attention to them anymore.
1773-2009
Well the "Progressives" are smiling now,but if in the future if the Rrepubs should retake the Senate it will become "Harry Kari instead of the real hari kari form of suicide.
ReplyDeleteWith the Obamacare mess this is a real threat,after all everyone knows that this mess was ALL a Democrat program and all Democrat lies to a gullible public.
Here is an interesting article with some historical background:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/filibuster-reaction-harry-reid-nuclear-hypocrisy-184412234.html
Yes I read something similar to this today,so if the Republicans do regain the Senate it will be a very painful revenge.
DeleteWhat goes around comes around, I'm sure this will bring about more cooperation in the Senate.
Thank you, Mick.
DeleteJean
The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.
ReplyDeleteFor federal appeals court nominees, President George W. Bush saw 35 of his 52 nominees confirmed, and, so far, 30 of Mr. Obama’s 42 nominees have been confirmed. Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all saw significantly higher confirmation rates for their appeals court nominees.
Obama understands he is running out of time. To use the nuke option for three DC circuit judges indicates he has an urgent need to control the outcome of upcoming cases.
ReplyDeleteIf we had any journalists left in this country they would be digging. Alas we are short in that department.
The court is likely to oversee crucial cases on environmental and financial regulation in the years ahead. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of issuing rules to regulate carbon emissions from new and existing coal- and gas-fired power plants. This is a crucial plank in President Obama's climate-change agenda. And any challenges to those rules could end up in the D.C. Circuit court.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes for the future of financial regulation. Key parts of the Dodd-Frank law are still being crafted by various agencies, and those regulations often appear before court. Last year, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission tried to establish "position limits" to reduce the risk that banks can take on, only to get struck down by the D.C. Circuit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/21/the-d-c-circuit-court-was-at-the-center-of-the-filibuster-fight-heres-why-it-matters/
Hypocrisy as usual.... I don't mind that they have this position but I do mind the lack of integrity in what they say...
ReplyDeleteObama 2005 - “I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about
power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose
this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because
they know it’s good for our democracy......The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if
the majority chooses to end the filibuster– if they choose to change the
rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the
bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse"
Biden 2005 - "This is what’s really going on here, the majority
doesn’t want to hear what others have to say even if it’s the truth.
The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. I say to my
friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now, but you
won’t own it forever. I pray God, when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
Reid 2005 - “The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of
power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government"
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean says Republicans are fixing to “blow up 200 years of Senate history” just because they’re not getting their way on a handful of “radical” judicial nominees.
We could go back to the days of patronage and let an endless stream of people visit the White House begging for jobs tying up the President so he can't get anything else done.
ReplyDeleteMinor nominations don't need to be filibustered. They need some discussion on qualifications and an up or down vote. Then the senate can move on to the companies business. Of course the major ones need more time discussion and vetting. Filibustering a minor appointment nomination is just a form of obstructionism and a waste of time.
I guess you and Harry Reid are smarter than the founders and 200 years of history.
DeleteWhat a laugh, you supporting this. What a total joke.
rick,
DeleteWith only three appointees, why not have the Senate simply revise the filibuster to rule to force the filibusterer to talk? It might last a day at best, no?
Jean
ricky is doing his usual liberal position.I say there are no minor appointments.
DeleteAppointments to head government agencies make policy that if challenged take huge finical resources and years in the court system to change,if ever.
Appointments to the judiciary last a life time and can shape how the challenges to law are heard if ever.
While it is argued exactly how much power that a President has under our system,I maintain that the power of appointment is one of the greatest.These appointments shape policy far beyond their tenure.