I don't generally read Novac, but this column does give some historical perspective on the use of the Nuclear option in the senate.
I don't like the idea though. It strikes me as dishonest force. I'm not surprised either that Robert Byrd used it four times as majority leader. I loathe Byrd almost as much as I did Strom Thurman.
Of course a WaPo article fails to give perspective:
Novac specifies what those ten losses were:Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term
Why all the blocking of the Appellate court nominees? What does this bode for Supreme Court nominees? The US court structure has the Appellate court, actually called the Courts of Appeal as the next to highest court in the country. So the Democrats are fine with Bush's low level appointees, it's just when they get to the levels where they will make profound constitutional law decisions that the democrats won't allow any Bush nominees.None of 10 filibustered Bush appellate court nominees has been confirmed, and another six are all designated filibuster victims.
Has anyone seen anything in the MSM that is this specific on the issue? I certainly haven't.
1 comment:
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the use of the Filibuster. What's wrong is the modern version of the filibuster is complete and utter BS. In the old days, they had to actually stand-up and speak. Everyone has seen "Mr Smith Goes to Washington," right (No? Go rent it now)? Now, they simply declare that they're doing a filibuster and if there isn't a super-majority (60 I think) to break it, they move on. CRAP. Again, I don't object to the use of the filibuster, but, by the gods, do a filibuster for real. This simple statement followed by the requirement for a super-majority is not following the intent of the concept. The idea is to force a real debate of the issue at hand, not simply shut stuff down going "Nyah, nyah, you don't have 60 votes." (best done with a Massachusetts upper-crust accent). Let's get rid of the current filibuster rules, but the keep the concept in place. I'd love to see a real life Mr. Smith over one of these appointees, or better still, on the upcoming Supreme Court nominees.
Post a Comment