Reid's Nuclear Disarmament Meeting
An extraordinary meeting is taking place today, which all 100 senators have been invited to attend. This should really not be an extraordinary thing -- you'd think that all senators meeting together would just be an actual floor session in the Senate -- but it is because it is actually a political meeting, with the doors closed. The senators aren't meeting to pass legislation, they're meeting to have a political showdown of sorts (hence the closed doors). Normally, each party's caucus meets separately behind closed doors to hash out party strategy, but what's extraordinary about today's confab is that both parties are meeting at once.
The meeting is a last-ditch effort by Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to avoid what some people call the "nuclear option" and others call the "constitutional option". This refers to what Harry Reid is threatening to do should Republicans keep up their almost-universal obstructionism by filibustering pretty much every vote the Senate takes these days. It's gotten so bad that the lazier members of the media often say things like "Well, as everyone knows it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate," without any acknowledgement that (1) this is not true, it's supposed to take only a majority vote (as the Constitution specifies), and (2) this is a recent development, since the Senate has not always operated this way.
At the heart of the battle is the filibuster. The filibuster is a Senate "tradition" or a Senate "rule," and as such is and always has been subject to adjustment. The Constitution is silent on the filibuster -- it was not dreamed up by the founders as part of the American governmental system. That's a key point a lot of people aren't even aware of. The Constitution does dictate specific "supermajority" votes (where a larger majority is needed than half-plus-one), for several circumstances, so it's not like the founders didn't think about situations where more than just a simple majority should be required.
In fact, there are five places in the Constitution where supermajorities are required from the Senate. When sitting to try impeachments, the Senate has to vote to convict by a two-thirds vote (Article I, Section 3). A two-thirds vote is also necessary to expel a member of the Senate (Article I, Section 5), override a presidential veto (Article I, Section 7), ratify a treaty (Article II, Section 2), or propose a new constitutional amendment (Article V). New states are allowed to be admitted to the Union with only a simple majority vote in both houses, and the vice president is the one who breaks ties in the Senate -- showing that the Constitution does address other questions of Senate voting as well. But they specified exactly when more than a majority vote would be required. And nowhere -- nowhere -- does either the word "filibuster" appear or the concept that the Senate cannot pass laws or confirm presidential appointments (judicial or otherwise) with any more than just a majority vote. So any Republicans now screaming about what Harry Reid's threatening should be directed to those cute copies of the Constitution they all carry around in their pockets, and asked to point to where the filibuster appears.
The closest thing in the Constitution that anyone can point to comes from Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." That's all it says about parliamentary rules for either chamber. They're allowed to set their own rules. Notice that there's nothing in that clause, either, about a supermajority being required to do so -- that, too, is just another one of the Senate's rules that can be changed by the Senate any time it feels like.
The real fight today, however, is over the following paragraph. Please note that the first part does indeed specify a two-thirds majority, but then the rest of the sentence does not -- which shows that it wasn't just some sort of oversight by the framers of the Constitution. If they had intended presidential appointments -- judges, even -- to require a supermajority, then they would have said so, as another part of the same sentence does for treaties. From Article II, Section 2, which enumerates the president's powers:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Earlier fights where the "nuclear option" was threatened were mostly over judicial nominees. These are the most important nominees a president makes, since all federal judges from the Supreme Court on down serve lifetime terms. Short of impeachment, once confirmed there is no way to get rid of them. That's a pretty powerful thing, when you think about it.
But the fight this time is over those other "Officers of the United States," not over judges. Harry Reid is not threatening to kill the minority's ability to filibuster either legislation or judicial appointments. Even his own caucus doesn't support ending the filibuster in either of those cases. All Reid is threatening is to end the filibustering of all non-judicial presidential appointments. That's another key point that often gets lost in the debate (especially the debate on mainstream television news). Even if Reid prevails, it will not be the end of the filibuster in the Senate as we know it. Far from it, in fact.
Reid has been driven to the point of threatening to change the Senate's rules because of the naked obstructionism exhibited by Republicans over nominees to federal boards and agencies that they don't particularly like. It is one thing to filibuster and fight against a nominee (for any job) that is seen as unqualified to do that job. It is quite another when Republicans baldly and publicly state that they're going to filibuster any nominee to a certain job, because they don't think the job should exist -- as they have done for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The C.F.P.B. was the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, and was passed into being by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. She was the natural choice to head the agency. Republicans refused to even consider her for the nomination, because the big Wall Street firms hated both her and the new agency. Obama recess-appointed her, and then she went on to win a Senate seat of her own. Her deputy was then proposed to head the agency, but even though Republicans don't really have a problem with Richard Cordray per se, they still announced that they would continue blocking his appointment -- because they are still annoyed that the agency was created in the first place.
Got that? They are not giving their "advice and consent" to the president's nominee not because they think he is unqualified in any way to do the job, but because they are still being sore losers over a vote on a bill which happened years ago. They have, so far, blocked anyone from getting Senate confirmation to head the new agency. This is nothing short of a political temper tantrum, folks. They didn't get their way, so they're holding their breath until they turn blue in the face -- that's all it is. And Cordray's appointment is only the worst case to point to -- there are other agencies that Republicans are fine with shutting down because they have no one confirmed to run them (such as the National Labor Relations Board), over purely ideological objection to what the agency is charged by law with doing.
This is why Harry Reid is threatening to change the rules. Because Republicans have gotten so blatant in their obstructionism. They're not making some principled point about a judge who will be there for life -- they are trying to hamstring federal agencies from being able to operate, just because they don't like the agencies' purpose. That is unprecedented, and is the reason Reid is so frustrated. The Constitution states that the president should be able to name his team in the executive branch. The Senate is supposed to confirm these choices, but originally this was only by majority vote. The traditions of the Senate are that these officers are confirmed as a regular matter of business. This has ground to a halt due to the abuse of the filibuster -- which is nothing more than a tradition in the Senate itself (and not even mentioned in the Constitution).
I write this not knowing the outcome of today's meeting. Perhaps Reid and McConnell and the other 98 members can hash out some sort of compromise which allows nominees to be confirmed as a normal matter of course, the way they used to be (before the last few years). Perhaps the Republicans will back down. Perhaps some sort of handshake agreement can be reached which allows for straight up-or-down votes on Richard Cordray and all the rest of those waiting their turn.
But if comity isn't achieved, then Harry Reid should make good on his threat. America is tired of seeing a broken Senate. They are tired of seeing nothing get done. The American people, in fact, would overwhelmingly prefer to have real filibusters return -- where senators are forced to defend their positions for hours on end. Everybody loves Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, to put this another way. But keep in mind that most of the problems won't even be fixed if Reid forces a rule change on non-judicial presidential appointments. We're not talking about killing filibusters for legislation or even for judicial appointments. The "nuclear" option currently under discussion isn't really all that radioactive, in fact. And if Democrats and Republicans can't strike a deal tonight -- if "nuclear disarmament" can't be reached, to extend the metaphor -- then Harry Reid should be fully prepared to follow through and change the rules for the Senate using whatever tools are available to him.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
then Harry Reid should make good on his threat.
Wanna lay down some quatloos that Harry folds?? :D
Michale
OMG! I find myself agreeing with Michale. But he is right, Harry is gonna fold.
Michale and SF Bear -
Don't know whether Reid will fold or not, but if he gets Cordray and the NLRB and the EPA people confirmed, it will be a victory for him nevertheless. Let's see what happens in the next few days...
-CW
Very good advice.
OMG! I find myself agreeing with Michale. But he is right, Harry is gonna fold.
Stranger things have happened..
None come to mind right now, but I am sure they're out there.. :D
Michale
Don't know whether Reid will fold or not, but if he gets Cordray and the NLRB and the EPA people confirmed, it will be a victory for him nevertheless. Let's see what happens in the next few days...
The ONLY reason that Reid is pushing for those nominees is because Obama got his pee pee slapped for violating the Constitution in nominating them during a "Senate Recess" when the Senate wasn't actually in recess..
Harry is trying to save face for Obama...
Now, the only question is, what is more important to Harry..
Kissing Obama's arse??
Or handing a VERY powerful weapon to the GOP when they become the majority in the Senate...
Can you imagine the what the GOP will do with the ability to kill the threat of filibuster on this issue??
Do ya'all REALLY want the GOP to have such power??
I mean, if the GOP is really as evil as ya'all claim, why would you support giving them such a powerful weapon??
It's a valid question..
Michale
I hear Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida...
Stevie who???
Michale
Crap!!!
Wrong commentary..
CW, could ya delete #7??
Sooweeeeee
Michale
It looks like Harry got some stuff done today after all. And still holds the option of going nuclear if necessary.
I've been extremely disappointed in the excessive learning curve that's been required by Dems to internalize the fact the the repubs are unworthy of respect, have no principles whatsoever, and are despicable opportunists who should be shunned. Because while powerful and wealthy Dems have agonized and deliberated over "comity" and "tradition" in Washington (both of which have been routinely spat upon by repubs), people all over this country have suffered. It has taken a lot of time and abuse to build up and puncture the beltway bubble but it is possible some amount of air and light may finally be seeping in from the actual country.
And good for Stevie Wonder.
I've been extremely disappointed in the excessive learning curve that's been required by Dems to internalize the fact the the repubs are unworthy of respect, have no principles whatsoever, and are despicable opportunists who should be shunned. Because while powerful and wealthy Dems have agonized and deliberated over "comity" and "tradition" in Washington (both of which have been routinely spat upon by repubs), people all over this country have suffered. It has taken a lot of time and abuse to build up and puncture the beltway bubble but it is possible some amount of air and light may finally be seeping in from the actual country.
I had an interesting conversation with a guy over at Banter Line..
He postulated a scenario where Liberal and Conservative were actually separate races...
If true, then your rant would HAVE to be labeled as racist...
Kinda makes ya think, eh??
At least, it SHOULD....
Michale
The difference, Michale, is that racists automatically assume people of whatever ilk intrinsically possess certain characteristics and engage in certain behaviors.
My views on today's republicans have been developed not from assumptions, but from a review of their actual, documented acts, and actual, documented words. Words and deeds. And when those words and deeds stink, they can be called stinky. Indeed they MUST be called stinky or the smell will only get worse. And there came a point where I stopped being willing to hold my nose and blame the dog. The stench is simply too foul.
And the thing is, you see, Black people are born black. They don't have a choice in the matter. But republican racists, violent women-hating, children starving republicans do have choices. They choose to be extraordinarily selfish, ignorant, mean-spirited, complacent, never-accountable, "the devil made me do it but YOU should be shot", hypocritical entities who debase Christianity by claiming it as their forever get-out-of-jail-free card. And if they aren't actual practitioners they are constant enablers-of and excuse-makers for the Rush Limbaughs and all his kindred acolytes.
Republicans and Dems aren't different "races". They are different spiritual beings.
My views on today's republicans have been developed not from assumptions, but from a review of their actual, documented acts, and actual, documented words. Words and deeds. And when those words and deeds stink, they can be called stinky. Indeed they MUST be called stinky or the smell will only get worse. And there came a point where I stopped being willing to hold my nose and blame the dog. The stench is simply too foul.
That is EXACTLY how a real racist would describe their racism..
Look, I am not saying you are racist. Please don't think that.
But you must admit, the thought process is the same..
You are assigning an entire group the traits of a relatively small minority..
You say "Republicans are evil"...
How is that any different than saying "black people are evil"??
Again, I am not saying you are racist.. Because Republicans and Democrats are not races. So you can't be racist because of your hatred of Republicans.
But, it IS a very bigoted and prejudice attitude..
Wouldn't you agree??
Michale
I don't "hate" republicans -- I abhor and loathe them. Obviously I am making a broad statement here because it takes too much time and too many pixels to write a rant with appropriate disclaimers such as:
this screed applies only to active, self-described republicans who engage in the behaviors I deplore such as lying, using their powers and gifts to do harm, promoting dehumanization, supporting predatory corporate behavior, supporting, promoting, misinforming and writing laws that support gun sales and refusing to enact any common sense restrictions on gun sales, doing everything they can to hang on to their money while denying working people a living minimum wage, affordable medical benefits, or a Financial Sector that can be trusted and the list goes on. Excluded from this disclaimer are self-described republicans who are so out of touch with current affairs that they sincerely believe that republicans stand for fiscal conservatism or, in fact, stand for anything at all other than they disdain our Black president and virtually everyone that isn't white, rich, or willing to be good foot soldiers who vote against their own interests in order to make sure that those who are white and rich remain white and rich.
Then there would need to be a separate addendum for the christianists who defile Christianity and revel in sadism, looking forward to the end times wherein they will be able to go to heaven and observe from there the neverending sufferings to be endured by "unbelievers". They get off on the idea of devils torturing the damned, and think people deserve to be damned who have different religious and spiritual beliefs and/or who interpret the Christian Bible differently. These people couldn't care less about Climate Change as they expect the world to end anyway.
You see my problem?
See, these repubs and christianists actively create harm and suffering in the world. They don't just "believe" a lot of nasty things, they act on them. The unholy combination of money, power and religious zealotry -- not shared by every individual of them, but pooled together by enough of them to gain them significant power in the world -- gives them the ability to do damage, and they use it.
How, precisely, should they be described?
BTW, I looked up the definition of "hate", the first of which is "feel intense or passionate dislike". So it probably does apply to me. I like loathing better as I think it's more accurate re: my feelings: "feel intense dislike or disgust for", and abhor was best: "to abhor it is to feel a profound, shuddering, repugnance". Repugnance was defined as "intense disgust" and disgust was defined as "a feeling of revulsion or profound disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive". All good descriptors.
The definition of prejudice: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" and I reject that my remarks re: repubs are prejudiced. They are not preconceived and they ARE based on reason and actual experience.
The real question, the profound spiritual question for me is how to deal with, process, etc. the feelings repubs inspire in me? I have no problem with experiencing moments of hate, disgust, repugnance -- all of those are perfectly natural, human emotions. I have not achieved the level of enlightenment that takes people beyond those feelings. I don't feel guilt for those feelings -- but the question becomes "what then?"
What I don't do is go out and shoot republicans. Or tie them to fences and beat them to death. Or lynch them. Or menace them. Or bomb them. Or deliberately withhold medical help, food, heat, shelter. Or say they are poor because they deserve it. Or scorn their honest labors. And when I talk about them it's nearly always in conjunction with "what they DO". Because it is by their actions that we know them.
And what I want is for them to be declawed and removed from power because they abuse and squander it. And if any of them have a shred of self-awareness or develop same, they will one day be appalled by their past behaviors. Then they need to apologize and atone. Otherwise I simply don't want to cross their paths.
I abhor and loathe them.
OK... Fair enough..
Now, what would you think of someone who said, "I don't go out and shoot black people or tie them to fences lynch them or anything, but I still abhor and loathe black people"
You would call that person a racist, wouldn't you?
Of course you would.
Because it would be true...
So, once again, I have to point out that there really isn't any difference...
Further, I am constrained to point out that, in the history of lynching, it was usually DEMOCRATs that were holding the ropes..
I'm just sayin'.....
Michale
Forgive me..
I just sometimes have an overwhelming inclination to take those that are so self-righteous down a peg or two.. :D
Michale
The question would be "why?"
Why do you abhor and loathe black people? Their answer would dictate my response to them.
You can't seem to grasp the difference between disgust at people's actions and disgust at people's existence. They aren't the same.
Separately, it becomes just another conservative dodge -- can't defend conservative actions so try to deflect attention from what they do to what people say about what they do. Then it's about "who's the real hater" versus "who's actions are indefensible, immoral and despicable?"
Repubs are very, very good and deflecting accountability. It was "democrats holding the ropes?" Aside from it's historical inaccuracy it is also just another dodge. Now its an "everyone did it" argument, or basically "we're not the only ones!" It was indefensible then, whoever did it, and any form of it is indefensible now, whoever does it.
Why do you abhor and loathe black people? Their answer would dictate my response to them.
And a person who is racist could give you a long litany of reasons why...
Just like you gave me a long litany of reasons why you hate Republicans..
And I'll tell you what I would tell the racist person.
Yes, THIS Republican/black person may have did this and THAT Republican/black person may have did that..
But to condemn an ENTIRE group for the actions of SOME???
Most Republicans are good and decent people who just have a different set of values...
Just as most black people are good and decent people who just have a different skin color...
To paint the entire group with the brush of the bad ones??
Well, isn't that the very definition of bigotry???
Michale
I already provided the disclaimer.
I already provided the disclaimer.
Yea.. You said that you have good reasons to hate Republicans..
Every person who hates, loathes and abhors an entire CLASS of people *ALWAYS* think they have "good reasons"...
I seem to remember something about a path to hell being paved with "good reasons"....
Or something like that...
Michale
Paula [9] -
Hey, I hear you. Although I'd say Harry Reid is the one who took the longest to wake up and smell the coffee (tea?). Nancy Pelosi figured it out a while back, I think.
Michale [10] -
Except, um, it's not. Are you born with your political beliefs, or can you change them? That's the heart of the subject of racism, and it is not here. So, sorry, but it's just not a valid concept in any way, shape, or form.
Paula [11] -
Thanks for putting it MUCH better than I just did. With you all the way on this one.
Michale [14] -
This is all just a weak attempt by you at having a conversation on racism, when the subject at hand is Mitch McConnell getting his ass handed to him by John McCain.
The difference, once again: you can CHANGE from being a Repubican to Democrat (or vice versa). You cannot change your race. This is why you are just attempting to hijack the conversation.
I realize you live in Florida, but not EVERYthing is about the Trayvon case, sorry.
To drop a nuke of sorts on this comment thread, Michale, do you "hate" Nazis? Why or why not? Are you bigoted for doing so? Why or why not? Yes, this is entering into Godwin's Law territory -- because, to me, racists are in the same category as Nazis. And the subject is pretty far indeed from what I think of today's American political scene, one way or the other, sorry.
-CW
Thanks Chris!
Except, um, it's not. Are you born with your political beliefs, or can you change them? That's the heart of the subject of racism, and it is not here. So, sorry, but it's just not a valid concept in any way, shape, or form.
I agree.. It was simply a supposition...
As we have already ALL agreed, we ALL have our bigotry.. :D
This is all just a weak attempt by you at having a conversation on racism, when the subject at hand is Mitch McConnell getting his ass handed to him by John McCain.
Not really. We're already deep into that discussion over on the last http://FTP... :D
I just thought it interesting that taking Paula's rant and replacing "Republican" to "black" or "white" or "hispanic" and you would have the perfect racist rant..
To drop a nuke of sorts on this comment thread, Michale, do you "hate" Nazis?
Of course I do. And I "hate" terrorists. And child-molesters... And drug dealers...
As I said... As YOU said, we are all bigots...
I just think it somewhat comical how the Left in general (and certain Weigantians in particular) go on and on about how bad bigots are and then turn around and show such bigotry towards Republicans.. :D
It's like at that TOS episode LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD. Where these two half black/half white aliens were constantly at each others throats, constantly fighting and trying to kill each other. And then we come to find out that it's all because one is black on the right side and white on the left and the other is white on the right side and black on the left. And the audience is like, "jeezus how utterly ridiculous is THAT"...
Every time I read a bigoted rant on here against Republicans I see that episode in my mind all over again..
I apologize if it appeared that I was hijacking this commentary.. I really had no need to do so, since the FTP one is still going strong. To be honest, I never thought it would go beyond my one comment as Paula usually just ignores anything I post..
I guess I must have hit a nerve.. :D
I'll be more careful in the future..
Michale