It's not hard at all, actually. However, McConnell on Meet the Press yesterday even now is not backing off on filibustering NLRB picks and Richard Cordray of the Financial Protection Bureau (FPB). While, the nuclear option would be unprecedented in the Senate, the actions of the GOP minority have been unprecedented. We've had a record number of filibusters the last 4 and a half years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
The GOP has used it as another way to try to legislate, essentially. They are opposed to the FPB in principle and so are doing whatever they can to weaken it and make it not function. This is yet another way they are achieving minority rule.
"In a sense, the bickering over the nuclear option obscured what this whole argument is really about. This isn’t as much about the propriety of changing the rules by simple majority as it is about a simple question: should a minority have the power to impose a 60-vote threshold on the Upper Chamber for the explicit purpose of nullifying the functioning of democratically created government agencies? After all, that’s what Republicans are currently doing. Oddly, the question of whether this is acceptable – not to mention the question of whether doing away with the filibuster on executive nominations is a good idea under the circumstances or even a reasonable response to them — have been largely missing from the discussion."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/15/top-senate-liberals-we-support-changing-rules-no-matter-who-controls-senate/
Today the Washington Post which opposes the nuclear option, admits that the GOP needs to deescalate this.
"MAJORITY LEADER Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) might be bluffing in his threat to use the “nuclear option” — the extraordinary step of changing big Senate rules by a simple majority vote, rather than the typical two-thirds. But the country shouldn’t have to find out. Cooler heads should prevail, and Republicans should back down."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
The GOP has used it as another way to try to legislate, essentially. They are opposed to the FPB in principle and so are doing whatever they can to weaken it and make it not function. This is yet another way they are achieving minority rule.
"In a sense, the bickering over the nuclear option obscured what this whole argument is really about. This isn’t as much about the propriety of changing the rules by simple majority as it is about a simple question: should a minority have the power to impose a 60-vote threshold on the Upper Chamber for the explicit purpose of nullifying the functioning of democratically created government agencies? After all, that’s what Republicans are currently doing. Oddly, the question of whether this is acceptable – not to mention the question of whether doing away with the filibuster on executive nominations is a good idea under the circumstances or even a reasonable response to them — have been largely missing from the discussion."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/15/top-senate-liberals-we-support-changing-rules-no-matter-who-controls-senate/
Today the Washington Post which opposes the nuclear option, admits that the GOP needs to deescalate this.
"MAJORITY LEADER Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) might be bluffing in his threat to use the “nuclear option” — the extraordinary step of changing big Senate rules by a simple majority vote, rather than the typical two-thirds. But the country shouldn’t have to find out. Cooler heads should prevail, and Republicans should back down."
"Mr. Reid last Thursday announced votes on seven presidential nominees, each of whom has waited too long for Senate confirmation. If Republicans successfully filibuster some or all of them this week, the majority leader may hold a simple-majority vote on changing Senate rules so that 41-vote minorities could not block executive nominees. This seems like a fairly modest change — 41 votes could still sustain a filibuster against lifetime judicial nominees, not to mention bills. But the precedent of using a simple majority to alter major points of Senate procedure would be huge. Future Republican majorities would no doubt change other rules to the detriment of future Democratic minorities. A cycle of procedural retribution, fundamentally reshaping the Senate, would be the probable result."
If the GOP wants to avoid this they know what to do. If not then you're dealing with such an obstructionist minority that doing this is what the economists call a 'free good' regardless of whether the GOP takes the Senate in 2014 or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment