Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Senate Nuclear Change
I am pretty indifferent to this change, however I am now just waiting to hear the Democrats and Liberals cry foul when/if the GOP regains the majority. Thoughts?
When this change will matter (besides now) is when there is a GOP president and senate. I think the dems will continue their winning streak with Hillary in 2016.
I wouldn't have a problem with this. The longstanding rule is that the president should have the power to staff his own administration. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, I support Republican nominees to posts in the executive branch. Offhand, I can think of one I have ever opposed. As for judges, because they aren't in the executive branch, and because as lifetime appointees, they serve beyond terms of the presidents who appoint them, I believe they should have closer scrutiny. But the fact is, there is lots of turnover below the Supreme Court level so as a practical matter, presidents are less able staff lower courts in the long term. Keeping salaries as low as possible for federal judges helps with this.
As a practical matter, it was important to change the rule now, because if Republicans gain control of the senate next year as is widely assumed they will, the president will be unable to get any appointments at all through, during the last two years of his administration. That just isn't acceptable. And the fact is, there is little doubt at all that Republican would have changed these rules when it was to their advantage so we might as well get the rules change done now.
Even with so many Conservatives crying for the Republicans to do something previously, it seems they had the sense not to kick this hornets nest... Media Matters Flashback
The future consequences will be interesting to watch.
I am not one to look back and talk about hypocrisy here or to be unduly moved by the flipflopping. The fact is circumstances have changed. There is no comity anymore. Nominees weren't being considered on an individual basis. There nominations were being used as political leverage to achieve other goals. The process had become a mess. The election of presidents must matter and that's true whether it's a Democrat or a Republican who is elected.
It seems that the Conservatives have thought it was a mess for awhile. However the Republicans did not change the rules of the game when they could have, whereas the Democrats did.
This being the same Democrats who accuse the Republicans of excessive power plays. It just reminds me that both parties are equally challenging and stubborn.
The GOP did not use the nuclear option because they negotiated a deal with the dems. When a similar type compromise was reached this year with the dems in power, the GOP did not keep their end of the bargain.
I could probably find other sources that say the same thing, but won't bother as I think you are stuck in your view that both parties are equally challenging and stubborn.
As I said, just don't start crying foul when the GOP has a majority in the Senate again...
I just can't think of any Republican nominee for office that was a foul. I didn't like some of them, but didn't President Bush have the right to staff his own administration? Isn't that one of the things winning elections means?
Well, one could look at historical statistics. Republicans confirmed far more Clinton nominees (and Obama nominees) than Democrats did for Bush nominees. This notion that Republicans are using the filibuster to keep Obama from making nominations is BS. Obama was just slow in making the nominations, and when he did he picked nominees far more ideological than did Bush.
See this for what it is: A last gasp by Obama to "pack the courts" with wild-eyed liberals that will further his socialist agenda after Republicans retake the Senate in 2014. A true cynic would even ask "why now?" These nominees have (presumably) been held up for some time, so what's the sudden rush? Simple. It gets Obamacare off the front pages.
Why didn't WHO confirm them all? Well, Democrats repeatedly used the filibuster to prevent Bush nominees from getting a vote. Republicans tended to vote against unqualified nominees.
When this change will matter (besides now) is when there is a GOP president and senate. I think the dems will continue their winning streak with Hillary in 2016.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have a problem with this. The longstanding rule is that the president should have the power to staff his own administration. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, I support Republican nominees to posts in the executive branch. Offhand, I can think of one I have ever opposed. As for judges, because they aren't in the executive branch, and because as lifetime appointees, they serve beyond terms of the presidents who appoint them, I believe they should have closer scrutiny. But the fact is, there is lots of turnover below the Supreme Court level so as a practical matter, presidents are less able staff lower courts in the long term. Keeping salaries as low as possible for federal judges helps with this.
ReplyDeleteAs a practical matter, it was important to change the rule now, because if Republicans gain control of the senate next year as is widely assumed they will, the president will be unable to get any appointments at all through, during the last two years of his administration. That just isn't acceptable. And the fact is, there is little doubt at all that Republican would have changed these rules when it was to their advantage so we might as well get the rules change done now.
==Hiram
Even with so many Conservatives crying for the Republicans to do something previously, it seems they had the sense not to kick this hornets nest...
ReplyDeleteMedia Matters Flashback
The future consequences will be interesting to watch.
I am not one to look back and talk about hypocrisy here or to be unduly moved by the flipflopping. The fact is circumstances have changed. There is no comity anymore. Nominees weren't being considered on an individual basis. There nominations were being used as political leverage to achieve other goals. The process had become a mess. The election of presidents must matter and that's true whether it's a Democrat or a Republican who is elected.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
It seems that the Conservatives have thought it was a mess for awhile. However the Republicans did not change the rules of the game when they could have, whereas the Democrats did.
ReplyDeleteThis being the same Democrats who accuse the Republicans of excessive power plays. It just reminds me that both parties are equally challenging and stubborn.
The GOP did not use the nuclear option because they negotiated a deal with the dems. When a similar type compromise was reached this year with the dems in power, the GOP did not keep their end of the bargain.
ReplyDeleteI could probably find other sources that say the same thing, but won't bother as I think you are stuck in your view that both parties are equally challenging and stubborn.
Ornstein: 'Filibuster change is historic'
just a reminder, Ornstein leans republican, or at least used to before they became so extreme
As I said, just don't start crying foul when the GOP has a majority in the Senate again...
ReplyDeleteThose darn pendulums tend to swing both ways...
As I said, just don't start crying foul when the GOP has a majority in the Senate again...
ReplyDeleteI just can't think of any Republican nominee for office that was a foul. I didn't like some of them, but didn't President Bush have the right to staff his own administration? Isn't that one of the things winning elections means?
--Hiram
Well, one could look at historical statistics. Republicans confirmed far more Clinton nominees (and Obama nominees) than Democrats did for Bush nominees. This notion that Republicans are using the filibuster to keep Obama from making nominations is BS. Obama was just slow in making the nominations, and when he did he picked nominees far more ideological than did Bush.
ReplyDeleteSee this for what it is: A last gasp by Obama to "pack the courts" with wild-eyed liberals that will further his socialist agenda after Republicans retake the Senate in 2014. A true cynic would even ask "why now?" These nominees have (presumably) been held up for some time, so what's the sudden rush? Simple. It gets Obamacare off the front pages.
Republicans confirmed far more Clinton nominees (and Obama nominees) than Democrats did for Bush nominees.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't they confirm them all?
--Hiram
Why didn't WHO confirm them all? Well, Democrats repeatedly used the filibuster to prevent Bush nominees from getting a vote. Republicans tended to vote against unqualified nominees.
ReplyDelete