If the Dems think they have enough clout to change the rules of the Senate, let them try. But my guess is they won’t because they know they will be in the minority again some day.

JackOfClubs on April 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM

And the payback would be huge.

I do take exception with your idea that the filthy liar that is infesting the White House should have latitude when it comes to appointments. If the past two months has shown anything it is that the filthy liar is incapble of selecting people who are stand-up ethical public officials. Instead we have the nation being run like the Chicago mobster that the filthy liar has always been. Patronage for political hacks without any real concern about the well being of the nation. The Senate and the American people need to step in and defend society from the domestic enemies currently in charge.

For his agenda. Bush used it three times and the President Idiot Boy-King Obama will use it more.

Deal with it.

getalife on April 1, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Fixed it.

(1) to change the rules so that judicial nominations are not subject to the same debate cloture requirements as legislation, and

(2) to impose a 2/3 majority requirement in order to reverse this rule change.

However, I return to the argument that elections have consequences. Unless Republicans can make an argument that either the two are incompetent, corrupt, or obviously disqualified, presidents have the ability to appoint the people they feel best represent their policies into these positions. For that reason, the Democrats were wrong to filibuster people like Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada; filibustering Obama appointees in the same manner won’t make Republicans less wrong for doing so.

Rubbish. Elections do have consequences and the consequence of not getting a 60% majority is that your party is vulnerable to filibusters. Rules have consequence too and the Senate rules allow a minority party to delay a vote if the majority cannot scape together 60 votes for cloture. The same principle holds true if the filibuster takes place in the committees, though the numbers may be different.

Presidents do have the prerogative to appoint whoever they want, but the Senate has the authority to advise and consent, which includes the power to withhold consent.
There is no rule that specifies what objections a senator may make in opposing a president’s pick and the specification that they must be corrupt or incompetent is completely arbitrary.

The Dems were not wrong, procedurally, to filibuster Bush’s appointees, though I think they were wrong on the merits. If we couldn’t get the required majority to override their filibuster, then we didn’t have any reason to complain. But now that we are in the minority, the same principle holds. The Dems swept the 2008 elections but they didn’t get quite the majority they needed to prevent filibusters. There is no reason we should give up the one tool we can use to prevent leftist judges from taking office, especially not some arbitrary stand on false principles.

If the Dems think they have enough clout to change the rules of the Senate, let them try. But my guess is they won’t because they know they will be in the minority again some day.

paul006 on April 1, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I’ve been reading Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” recently. In there (and I apologize for my poor memory on the details) he discussed a state in India where the party in charge needed to do something unpopular due to budget constraints and the opposing party began having street demonstrations and protests.

At the same time, in a neighboring state, the parties were switched but the budget issue was the same. In this state, the situation was identical with the party out of power demonstrating and protesting the exact same decision that they were saying was necessary in the state where they were in control.

It’s depressing. I’d like honesty and integrity in politics. If you truly believe something is good or bad, it should be good or bad regardless of who is in charge.

I’ve noticed that the fliers from the Answer folks in the LA area have changed from protesting the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to protesting “all wars” with a focus on the “illegal war against the Palestinians”. I always thought they were kooks, but, I believed they actually believed what they were saying.

Now I realize it’s mostly a cynical power play that varies dependent upon who’s in power and who’s out.

Turnabout is fair play. An even more worthy argument.

Not just the best but probably the only meaningful time to spotlight egregious appointments is in the approval process. How do you persuade the public in the next coupla election cycles that the appointments were truly bad when they can turn around and ask, if they were so bad, why weren’t you squawking back then?

However, I return to the argument that elections have consequences.

I suppose that that only matters if a Democrat wins? Because while I appreciate the sentiment, I don’t remember the Democrats as a group saying the same thing about Bush’s nominees.

I’m not in favor of tit for tat, but I fight it quite difficult to get too engaged about the possibility that the GOP might filibuster nominees for a couple of reasons:

1) Playing fair while your opponents do not leaves you at a great disadvantage. Sure, you might feel good about yourself, but you’re still on the losing end.

2) It will take a few weeks at most before the Democrats invoke the nuclear option and reduce the number of votes to end judicial filibusters from 60 down to 51. Watching the hypocritical convulsions of Obama supporters claiming that such a move is fully justified will be great fun to watch.

Namely, Harold Koh.

Political appointments should not be filibustered. I supported the “nuclear option” then when Frist was considering it and I support it now if Democrats use it to kill Republican filibusters of Obama appointments.

It’s just plain wrong. A President sends a nominee to Congress and the Constitution says that Congress will ratify or not. You don’t throw an appointee into limbo with a filibuster just because you don’t like the way they think. Up or Down vote – majority wins – it’s the only way to go.

Elections have consequences folks. Americans fell for pretty boy with a head full of radical ideas and the energy to destroy the democracy our founding fathers left us. No sense in sheltering the American people from the error they clearly made.

HondaV65 on April 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Why is it just plain wrong? Does the Constitution say a single word about filibusters and when they are and are not appropriate?

Not a word. Filibusters are a Senate rule. Either there should be no filibusters at all, for any reason, because that’s not in the Constitution. Or the Senate has the right to make their own rules.

And if the Senate can make its own rules, then the only question left is if it’s a good rule or bad. If it applies only to one party and not the other, it’s a bad rule.

The problem here is that the Senate has decided there is no rule against filibustering nominees. If the Republicans don’t take advantage of that non-rule, they’re fools.

If you really want to argue against the filibuster of nominees, you have to change the Senate’s rules. Until that rule gets changed, Republicans should filibuster at every useful opportunity, and remind the Democrats that it might be a good idea to change the rule.

And of course, it would be completely unfair to change the rule now after letting the Democrats do it for the last 8 years. But I’m sure the Senate could work out a deal. After all, it is the world’s greatest deliberative body, right?

Point being, it is easier to defeat their effect on our world in advance prior to judicial precedence establishing further Socialism eroding the Constitutional Government.

Filibuster on record.

@ 1:46 PM

Judicial rulings HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

Elections have consequences folks.

Appointments have consequences, folks.

Elections have consequences, folks.

Gee whiz, who’da thunk?!

Soon government will marry big business, with BHO as the minister.

jgapinoy on April 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Comment of the Day™

I lol’ed.

There’s no question that “pro-life” movement supports slavery for women. Every time a woman has sex, according to these people, she implicitly agrees to raising another child. Remember, that condoms don’t work. Only abstinence works.

If raising another child is out of question for you, you can’t have sex. Ever. Of course, if you’re a man, standards are completely different. A one night stand clearly imposes no liability on the man.

Noting simple facts has nothing to do with being a leftist. Support for government oppression of women has nothing to do with being a conservative.

radiofreevillage on April 1, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Wow! You sure put that strawman in his place. Way to go.

(He reminds me more and more of that hissy little Gollum character in “Lord of the Rings“.)

profitsbeard

I see Mickey Mouse’s evil twin.