Pages

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Harry Reid and Dems Go Nuclear! How Sweet it Is

     Today, is a day that will not live in infamy. Which is saying something as everyday these days is pretty infamous in our political culture. However, today Reid and the Dems stepped up and did something that simply needed to be done. It was a choice that many of the Dems didn't want to make. 

     The Republicans are claiming that the Dems have broken their word going back to an agreement made then during the Bush second term over judicial nominations-back then it was the Repugs who were talking about curtailing the filibuster. 

    In fact, this is false-the Dems have been trying for years to come to some sort of agreement short of the nuclear option. However, with the GOP breaking their agreement with Reid and the Senate Dems back in June on nominees, the nuclear option is simply an idea who's time has come.  With the latest GOP filibuster of Obama's three D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals's nominees it's time.

    "After years of threats and warnings, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his Democratic majority on Thursday executed the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch and judicial nominees, except for the Supreme Court."
     "Reid invoked the swath of GOP filibusters of cabinet, sub-cabinet and judicial nominees, from Chuck Hagel and Mel Watt to executive positions and Obama's three nominees to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins."

     "Is the Senate working now? Can anyone say the Senate is working now?" the majority leader said before the vote. "I don't think so."

     "The "Reid Rule," as supporters are calling it, does not affect the minority party's ability to filibuster Supreme Court nominees or legislation."


     As Jonathan Bernstein tells us, this is a real game changer in the functioning of the Senate-up till now it simply hasn't over the last 5 years. 

    "Harry Reid and the Democrats today have acted: we have majority-imposed rules change in the Senate, by a 52-48 vote. All Republicans opposed the change, and three Democrats — Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, and Carl Levin — joined them. From now on, simple majorities will be sufficient to confirm executive branch and judicial nominees. Reid made an exception for Supreme Court nominees, but that’s surely a technicality; if and when a successful filibuster is conducted against a Supreme Court choice, it’s virtually certain that the exception will be closed."

    "This is a major, major, event. It changes how the nation is governed in a significant way. That said, it’s not as if the Senate has been static since the last time filibuster rules were changed (at least in a major way) almost 40 years ago; most reform is incremental, and one could argue that the rules change today returns nominations closer to how things were done in the 1970s than they have been for the last decade, and especially during the Obama era. However, what’s more likely is that we’ll see a Senate that isn’t really like either of those bodies."
     If it's in anyway different form the body we've seen over the last 5 years, Thanks be to God!
     The irony is that this used to seem an unthinkable route to take-there's the philosophical issue of minority rights within the Senate and then there's the issue of GOP retaliation. However, at this point, GOP obstruction has been so bad that it's hard to imagine it getting worse. The GOP has been such a bully but have made the mistake of all bullies-if someone messes with you whether you're nice to them or not then there's really no reason to be nice to them. The status quo is so poor that this has to be better-it's action. As for the Republicans taking over the Senate and ending the filibuster on legislation and SJC nominees as well-they have to actually win the Senate back first but even should they so so, maybe it's for the best. 
   I've more and more come to the view that the filibuster is more a 'barbarous relic' than in anyway democratic. 
   Perhaps the best reaction to this is what many political historians are saying today: about time. 



    

No comments:

Post a Comment