Reid: Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

posted at 5:01 pm on July 14, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the obligatory Sunday-show appearance to explain away his attempt to activate the “nuclear option” of altering Senate procedures to put limits on minority rights (in this case, to cap the minority’s ability to filibuster presidential nominations — Democrats are very much perturbed that Republicans are currently stalling a handful of President Obama’s candidates).

The reasoning behind the ostensibly “minimal” changes he’s trying to make on behalf of Obama’s nominations, Reid argued, are, like, totally and one hundred percent different than when Democrats were stalling Bush nominees to which they objected, or something. And, really, “Whoever is president should be able to have the people on their team that they want.” …Uhm, the obvious rejoinder to which, of course, would run somewhere along the lines of: So… why do we bother even having a Senate confirmation process, at all? Why not just skip all of that nasty aggravation altogether and allow any president at any time to appoint whomever he want to whichever position, no questions asked? Does the phrase “checks and balances” ring any bells for this guy, or what? Starting around the 13:10 mark:

The Senate is poised for votes Tuesday on ending debate on several of Obama’s nominees, including his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency Gina McCarthy, Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

On Monday night in the old Senate chamber, there will be a meeting which all senators have been asked to attend in order to discuss the rules change. …

Reid said his proposed rules change would not apply to judicial nominees – only to appointees to executive branch agencies and Cabinet departments. “We’re not touching judges, that’s what they (the Republicans) were talking about (in 2005), this is not judges, this is not legislation – this has allowing the people of America to have a president who can have his team in place,” Reid said. “This is nothing like what went on” in 2005 when Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened the same “nuclear option” in the face of Democratic filibusters, supported by Reid at that time, of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No. Don’t be ridiculous.

Jaibones on July 14, 2013 at 5:04 PM

It would help tremendously if all of Obama’s choices didn’t suck.

HotAirian on July 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM

This senile old bastard needs to go.

jawkneemusic on July 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Reid: Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

Shouldn’t We The People have a voice in that?

Electrongod on July 14, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I shudder to think what it would be like if he had his “team” in place.

Cleombrotus on July 14, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Trying to get the “team in place”so they can ram through regulations that wouldn’t make it through Congress before the GOP takes the Senate. MT is a likely loss, now.

Wethal on July 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Reid: Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

So you’re for removing all Senate confirmation procedures?

James on July 14, 2013 at 5:13 PM

“Whoever is president should be able to have the people on their team that they want.”

Not when those people are intent on shredding the Constitution.

INC on July 14, 2013 at 5:15 PM

there is a difference between ‘team’…and ‘crooks’…Harry!

KOOLAID2 on July 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM

President Obama’s choices. Hmmm. Like Hillary “What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton?

thatsafactjack on July 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM

How about appointing him to replace Napolitano? He couldn’t do any worse.

We know pretty well what he’d say about this if there were a Republican in the White House. How he says stuff like this bare-faced is disgusting.

flataffect on July 14, 2013 at 5:18 PM

This after the GOP gives them amnesty…

Goodness the GOP is corrupt and/or stupid

The GOP will betray you

True_King on July 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Reid: Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

Going by what happened with Bork and to a lesser degree Thomas, the obvious answer is ‘no’.

Liam on July 14, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Top US Senators yield no ground in filibuster showdown over Obama’s executive-branch nominees – @Reuters

3 hours ago from http://www.reuters.com by editor
==============================================

(Exerpts)

WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:43pm EDT

(Reuters) – The Senate’s top Democrat and Republican yielded no ground on Sunday as they neared a showdown over President Barack Obama’s executive-branch nominees that could dramatically change how the Senate operates.

“I want everyone to hear this. The changes we are making a very, very minimal,” Reid said, sounding as if a final decision had already been made.

“What we are doing is saying, ‘Look American people, shouldn’t President Obama have somebody working for whom he wants?’” Reid said.

Democrats charge that Republicans have blocked a number of top nominees, not because they are unqualified, but because Republicans oppose the agencies that they would head.

In 2005, the then-Senate Republican majority threatened “the nuclear option” in response to Democrats blocking a number of Republican President George W. Bush conservative nominees.

At the time, Reid spoke against “the nuclear option,” saying it would undermine the Senate, while McConnell argued for it, saying change was needed.

The threat was averted when a bipartisan deal was reached only to filibuster judges in “extraordinary circumstances.”

“I’m glad we didn’t do it,” McConnell said of the 2005 showdown. “We went to the brink and we pulled back because cooler heads prevailed …. That is what I hope happens here.”(More….)
===========================================================

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/14/us-usa-congress-senate-idUSBRE96D08M20130714

canopfor on July 14, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Harry is unclear on that whole Constitutional “advise and consent of the Senate” thingy.

Except, of course, when the Democrats are in the minority.

The real question is, are there 51 Democratic senators DUMB enough to vote for this?

GarandFan on July 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Aaaah, Politics. How refreshing! The reason for Sen. Reid to NOT activate the “nuclear option” is that it will be used against his own party when the GOP returns to power (a definite eventuality).

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on July 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Now:

“Whoever is president should be able to have the people on their team that they want.”

Then:

The Senate today rejected President Bush’s nomination of John G. Tower to be Secretary of Defense, the first time in 30 years that a President was denied his choice of a Cabinet member.

fogw on July 14, 2013 at 5:24 PM

I’m not surprised that Reid doesn’t understand the concept of advise and consent. No one in their right mind would ask him for advise, and he’s never asked any of the children he’s buggering for consent.

Flange on July 14, 2013 at 5:25 PM

10 years ago Harry, the answer from you was no.

And I agree. It should be the team the President thinks is best suited for the tasks at hand, subject to the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

Jeff Weimer on July 14, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I accidently heard Amy Kouchbar (?) on george stepinit this morning. She made the same statements as Reid. She also said that both sides do this and the repubs are always trying to bend the filibuster rules. No, that is a lie! Each time something like this has come up on the republican side, the republican leadership turns it down and it never comes to a vote. The republican position has ALWAYS been to go with the rules as established at the start and as voted on. It is only the dhimocrapts and libruls in general that want to manipulate the rules after the game has started. That is why, libruls and dhimocrapts all over the world call off elections after they get in power! Case in point the treavon martin case. abortion controls or limits, gun control, ad infinitum.

Old Country Boy on July 14, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Reid argued, are, like, totally and one hundred percent different than when Democrats were stalling Bush nominees to which they objected, or something.
=======================

Yup,they sure is a whinning about it,the Dems,that is!!!

canopfor on July 14, 2013 at 5:30 PM

…Rot-in-He11 Reid!

KOOLAID2 on July 14, 2013 at 5:30 PM

This senile old bastard needs to go.

jawkneemusic on July 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM

No – he doesn’t need to “go”…..

He needs to be “disappeared”…..or ended. We should NEVER have to hear from him again.

williamg on July 14, 2013 at 5:36 PM

There has not been a “Palm-Greasing”, “Crony-Favoritism” power structure in place like the one that Keeps Harry Reid in power since the Joe Paterno Power Structure that led to Jerry Sandusky.

Only God knows what the Harry Reid Power Structure has led to – but it’s likely much, much worse than Sandusky,

williamg on July 14, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Reid:

Advise and consent.

Joe Mama on July 14, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Where’s McCain and his magical gang of 8 now?

Skywise on July 14, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I don’t know ask Bush about that and you stopping his team that he wanted from being in place.

This could be good in that when the republicans control the senate it full ramrod time.

jukin3 on July 14, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Democratic Hypocrisy

In an attempt to create the perception of Republican resistance, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev), has taken the extraordinary step of scheduling contentious cloture votes for 17 nominees who were otherwise on the normal path to routine confirmation, claiming “delay for delay’s sake.”

Of course, these desperate claims are entirely false: the Senate has already confirmed more of President Obama’s nominees (129) than it did during President George W. Bush’s entire second term (120), and has done so at an almost identical pace (average of 218 and 211 days, respectively, from nomination to confirmation). Indeed, not long ago Reid acknowledged that the Senate has “done a good job on nominations,” and a Judiciary Committee Democrat recently noted that we have been “speeding up the confirmation of judges.”

Claims of Republican obstruction are not only demonstrably false, they are highly hypocritical. The very Democrats now seeking to manufacture confirmation controversy personally devised and carried out a systematic effort to block President Bush’s judicial nominees through an unprecedented use of the Senate filibuster.

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who now claims to have been “respectful of President Bush’s appointments,” repeatedly joined with Democratic colleagues in attempting to filibuster judicial confirmations, including seven separate votes against cloture for the nomination of Miguel Estrada—one of the nation’s leading appellate lawyers—to the D.C. Circuit.

Not to be outdone, Reid took virtually every opportunity to block Bush nominees, voting against cloture on 26 separate occasions. In his view there was no amount of time—“not a number in the universe”—that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees.

Resist We Much on July 14, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Shouldn’t George Bush have been afforded that same opportunity during his tenure, Harri you @zzwhole.

De Oppresso Liber on July 14, 2013 at 6:05 PM

No Harry . . . nobody promised him Carte Blanche. A gaggle of left wing zealots will not do.

rplat on July 14, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Truly cannot stand that %$#!&*! weasel.

changer1701 on July 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM

What don John McCain and Lindsey Graham say about this? They are, after all, Harry Reid’s BFF!!!!!

ladyingray on July 14, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

No. He should not.

By rights, Obama should not even be President any longer.

goodold_lucifer on July 14, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Just don’t ask me what this _resident should have.

tim c on July 14, 2013 at 6:19 PM

“Miguel Estrada, paging Mr. Miguel Estrada to the Senate Confirmation Hearing!”

Umm, yeah Dingy, you did that. Of course, I’m sure you don’t remember doing so; given that your actions and mannerisms betray the symptoms of senility; I’m pretty sure you don’t remember your own home address or phone number, so I can see why you would be ignorant of actions you took over 8 years ago.

AZfederalist on July 14, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Well, then the Constitution should say that, then, shouldn’t it ?

Too bad it DOESN’T say that. Instead, the Senate confirms his appointees.

deadrody on July 14, 2013 at 6:25 PM

My hypocrisy has a first name; it’s H-A-R-R-Y. My hypocrisy has a second name; it’s R-E-I-D-er…dang, needs another letter.

Othniel on July 14, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Never fear Juan McStain and his Mistress (Who Should Be Primaried Out Of Orifice)Lindsay Grahamnasty can surely reach across the isle to their good friends and fellow circle jerkers and round up the votes to stop this travesty! S/

ConcealedKerry on July 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Term Limits!

ConcealedKerry on July 14, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

Says the man who voted against Clarence Thomas?

john1schn on July 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

Says the man who voted against John Tower?

The guy’s a fu..ing hypocrite.

john1schn on July 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM

“What we are doing is saying, ‘Look American people, shouldn’t President Obama have somebody working for whom he wants?’” Reid said.

No, you hypocritical lying turd.

dogsoldier on July 14, 2013 at 6:50 PM

It’s important to stop Obysmal’s court packing because he is looking to rubber stamp his power grabs.
http://heritageaction.com/press-releases/memo-for-the-movement-congress-must-stop-the-obama-court-packing-plan/

Good detail in this piece.

onlineanalyst on July 14, 2013 at 7:01 PM

My hypocrisy has a first name; it’s H-A-R-R-Y. My hypocrisy has a second name; it’s R-E-I-D-er…dang, needs another letter.

Othniel on July 14, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Put another D in for ‘Dumb.’ Or ‘Disgraceful.’

James on July 14, 2013 at 7:02 PM

There has not been a “Palm-Greasing”, “Crony-Favoritism” power structure in place like the one that Keeps Harry Reid in power since the Joe Paterno Power Structure that led to Jerry Sandusky.

Only God knows what the Harry Reid Power Structure has led to – but it’s likely much, much worse than Sandusky,

williamg on July 14, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Just fire up the TV box and play the movie Ca$ino one more time; the part of Harry Reid, Nevada Gaming Commission Chairman, is played by Tommy Smothers.

Dirty up to his eyeballs.

slickwillie2001 on July 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Does the phrase “checks and balances” ring any bells for this guy, or what?

Uhm, that’s what the IRS and Death Panels are for, right?

/Harry (the) Red

ShainS on July 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Does the phrase “checks and balances” ring any bells for this guy, or what?

Some antiquated hangover from old rich racist white guys, irrelevant today because, internet.

Kenosha Kid on July 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM

So Harry Reid is “profiling” Senate minority party rights?

ChuckTX on July 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Only an opinion here but… Harry Reid is THE poster child for why there should be term limits and age limits on those running our government and creating laws of the land all while’s they contemptibly and unconstitutionaly empty the treasury, Fort Knox and your children’s piggy banks!

ActinUpinTexas on July 14, 2013 at 8:07 PM

So you’re for removing all Senate confirmation procedures?

James on July 14, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Only the ones for Democratic Presidents.

Bitter Clinger on July 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Not when he’s got political sickos in mind. A rash turns into gangrene if not stopped at the start.

RdLake on July 14, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Shouldn’t We The People have a voice in that?

Electrongod on July 14, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Bwhahahahahaha. Good one peasant. Eat some damn cake and shut up.

Doomsday on July 14, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Shouldn’t We The People have a voice in that?

Electrongod on July 14, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Unfortunately, we did on election day last year. The majority voted for a crap sandwich. I just wish they could just suffer alone instead of making the rest of us suffer alongside them.

Othniel on July 14, 2013 at 9:22 PM

“This is nothing like what went on” in 2005 when Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened the same “nuclear option” in the face of Democratic filibusters, supported by Reid at that time, of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

It’s ok when we do it… not as persuasive an argument as you think Reid.

gekkobear on July 15, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Well he can’t, Harry. Mao and Beria and all those other folks who used to get things done the way he really likes are dead.

Blacklake on July 15, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Reid is wrong on this and it will come back to hurt his party at the polls next year, if he succeeds. Having more corrupt people doing union’s dirty deeds on the American people is just wrong.

Amazingoly on July 15, 2013 at 7:38 AM

Shouldn’t We The People have a voice in that?
Electrongod on July 14, 2013 at 5:07 PM

We do. It’s called an “election”, and it’s held beforehand.

Genuine on July 15, 2013 at 7:47 AM

The changes are very, very, very minimal?

So is that first taste of crack cocaine. Minimal. But then there’ll be something else that the President absolutely has to have right now if not day before yesterday, and so the filibuster rule will be nuked for that.

And then there’ll be something else that he needs to make the world just perfect for liberals and illegal aliens, and so the filibuster rule will be nuked for that.

And then the minority in the Senate may as well not even bother to come to Washington, D.C., because the liberals will 100% have it their way.

Mdirmeie on July 15, 2013 at 8:03 AM

If Reid wants to destroy the filibuster, it should be made clear that the future destroyer of our economy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will be eliminated next time there is a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican President.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a bigger threat to the economy than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, and we know what they did to the economy in 2008. But it’s not just the magnitude of its threat. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was set up to avoid any future Congressional oversight by an insanely undemocratic funding scheme through the Federal Reserve. So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is essential a rogue organization with no democratic limitation on it from being able to destroy the economy in any way it fantasizes will “help” consumers.

thuja on July 15, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Reid: Shouldn’t the president have the team in place that he wants?

How many times did this pompous bag of bovine flatulance vote against GWB’s and GHWB’s nominations?

Did he only gain this notion during Dem administrations?

gonnjos on July 15, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Shouldn’t Bush have had that as well. Sauce for the goose and all that.

neyney on July 15, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Isn’t this “rigging the system?” Anyone who votes for this, should be kicked out of the Senate at the ballot box. Play by the current rules, Harry.

Amazingoly on July 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Reid has always reminded me of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings.

SailorMark on July 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM

His point might make sense if Obama had shown reliably good sense, but he’s repeatedly proved himself to be an amateur leading a bunch of radical activists. This is where Congress needs to be a check on his excesses and foolishness. And Harry Reid is hardly the one I’d turn to for interpreting the intents of the drafters of the Constitution. He’s nothing but a partisan hack.

flataffect on July 15, 2013 at 8:27 PM