The Senate Goes Nuclear: Harry Reid breaks filibuster procedure for judicial nominees

[Talint]

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/senate...nuclear-option

After years of Republican obstructionism, Senate Dems have had enough.

The upper chamber of Congress voted on Thursday to deploy the so-called “nuclear option” to change the rules of the Senate. The move now clears the way for Obama’s judicial nominees who were being blocked by Republicans.

On a 48-52 vote, the Democrats voted to officially go nuclear. A “no” vote was a vote to change the rules.

Just three Democrats sided with the Republicans, including Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

On the Senate floor, Reid said the “need for change is obvious,” pointing to the GOP’s pattern of filibustering on matters that should be routine, like green-lighting judges.

“In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama Administration – during the last four and a half years,” said Reid.

Before the vote, the Nevada Democrat declared it was time to “change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.”

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the move “utterly absurd” and accused Democrats of setting up “one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else.” He told Democrats “you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”

The vote comes as Senate Republicans blocked – for the third time in three weeks—Obama’s latest pick, Robert Wilkins, to be a judge on the powerful D.C. Court of Appeals.

The filibuster rules will now be overhauled in this Congress so that the continual GOP threat of filibuster doesn’t effectively require 60 votes to confirm judicial and executive nominees. There is still an exception for Supreme Court nominees.

Shortly after the vote, Obama commended the Senate’s action, saying the move was necessary due to the “abuse of arcane procedural tactics.” He said neither party was blameless, but ripped GOPers who have blocked 30 of his nominees. “Enough is enough,” Obama said.

He added: “Over the past five years, we had an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress that has prevented too much of the American people’s business from getting done…Today’s pattern of obstruction isn’t normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned.”

Over the summer, Reid threatened to go nuclear after Republicans blocked a number of executive nominations, including Richard Cordray as permanent director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. But Republicans eventually hammered out a deal and approved the nominations in exchange for Democrats agreeing not to alter the rules.

This time was different, however. There was never any deal on the horizon and some Democratic senators like Dianne Feinstein of California and Tom Harkin of Iowa – who had been holdouts in the past – voted in favor of the nuclear option.

Vice President Joe Biden, who once opposed the rules change when he was senator, said on Thursday that he was now in favor of the nuclear option.

There are clear incentives – Republicans in the upper chamber could no longer block Obama’s nominees. But there are drawbacks, too. After all, Democrats won’t always hold a Senate majority – they may well lose it next year – and by setting a reformed-filibuster precedent, Dems could find themselves without a key tool when they’re inevitably in the minority again.

Republicans, meanwhile, have argued that the court’s workload does not justify three more judges and said Democrats are merely trying to distract Americans from the troubled rollout of HealthCare.gov.

GOPers warned earlier in the day that if Dems go through with the change, they’ll reciprocate when they have the majority, including for Supreme Court picks.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa released a statement saying: “It appears the Majority Leader is now trying to convince his caucus that somehow he’d be able to change the rules on judicial nominees, but limit the change to only lower court nominees. This is a difference without a distinction. If he changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court.”

Perhaps, ironically, the history of the nuclear option traces back to Richard Nixon. When he was vice president in 1957, the Republican argued that the Constitution allows the presiding officer of the Senate to override Senate rules by making a ruling that is then voted on by a simple majority vote.

Fucking finally. This is some great progress. Would have liked to have seen it across the board, but starting with judicial nominees is a good place to start, I guess.

[Kuya]

Should just eliminate it entirely. The Republicans aren't going to be as restrained and nobody should be under any impression that they will limit it to just lower court designations.

[Xno Kappa]

Senator McConnell seems to disagree with Senator McConnell on the whole change.

[Azull]

I was disappointed when I first saw this and it wasn't about energy but instead the govt arguing about the proper ways to argue.

[ringthree]

The historical context really reflects on this issue. Before about 40 years ago, filibusters were rare and dramatic. Supreme Court justices were accepted or rejected on up or down votes. The system worked.

People complain about the "inside politics" aspects of the Congress now, but honestly it is way, way better for these people to be cordial and compromise instead of just being fucking bomb throwers.

I haven't given up on democracy, but man, I would be fine with Bill Clinton as emperor.

[Kaslo]

Pfff this is nothing. They need to be like Oklahoma and completely remove the ability of the opposing party to even offer amendments. Now that is a rule change (occurred when considering tort reform)

[Ksandra]

Was at in-laws earlier today, you should see the rage on fox news. It would be glorious if I didn't have to think about how they (the in-laws) eat that shit up.

[Kyreth]

These days, watching Congress feels like staring into an active geological fault line. Long periods of grinding against each other to no effect followed by political earthquakes. A lot of what worked under more polite times has gotten shot to pieces, and odds are, this'll be pushed further if the Republican shitstorm of 2013 continues to blow. For now, it's just the direct method of trying to unfreeze some portion of what Congress is supposed to actually do.

Of course, once upon a time it took a two-thirds vote to get cloture, so things have gradually gotten easier over time. We've come a long way since 1837...

[Xno Kappa]

What's sad is that it wasn't even the Senate causing the gridlock. They arguably went along with government as normal passing everything on to the house that sat and did stupid shit on everything.

[archibaldcrane]

What's sad is that it wasn't even the Senate causing the gridlock. They arguably went along with government as normal passing everything on to the house that sat and did stupid shit on everything.

Actually, presidential appointments (cabinet, judges) are approved by the Senate alone.

[archibaldcrane]

Tensions between the two parties have reached a boiling point in the last few weeks as Republicans repeatedly filibustered Mr. Obama’s picks to the country’s most important appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate has voted on three nominees to the court in the last month. Republicans have blocked them all, saying they would allow the president no more appointments to that court.

It's one thing to say "this particular person is not right for the position" - but simply not allowing appointments at all is completely ridiculous.

[Buffy]

Actually, presidential appointments (cabinet, judges) are approved by the Senate alone.

Correct. Without looking it up, I'm 99% sure the only thing the House gets "advice and consent" on is if the Vice-President is replaced mid-term.

[Cleveland_7795]

Funny....

In 2005 in a Republican controlled Senate, these hyposcrits went ballistic when the Republicans even considered this idea for the exact same reason. Ried was one of the most outspoken about it. Followed by Biden. Now its okay?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/po...yRxmXQdfrgB2A&

Even the Evil Bush would not support the idea in 2005. Now, Obama gives full blessing to any powergrab possible, this included.

"The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government," - Sen. Harry Ried, 2005

Proves alot in my opinion. "Okay for me, but not for thee..."

[Cleveland_7795]

Even better...Mr. Hope and Change himself on the "nuclear option" in 2005:

https://twitter.com/cspanvl/status/403612892517261312

[Cleveland_7795]

My how deep the memory hole goes...

Ried in 2005 decrying the very idea of what he just did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga91DDZxNng

[Kuya]

I used to not want the nuclear option either till i realized that the republicans are the single worst thing to ever happen to the US of A.

[Blubbartron]

The irony of calling this "the nuclear option" is that the filibuster was intended to be the nuclear option. Exceedingly powerful, and seldom used. Unfortunately, the Republicans decided to go nuke-crazy, and Congress has been living in nuclear fallout for the past 6 years. The only thing left to do when people show their inability to responsibly (not) use nuclear weapons is to remove those weapons from everyone, so no one can be tempted to act as foolishly.

[Talint]

Funny....

In 2005 in a Republican controlled Senate, these hyposcrits went ballistic when the Republicans even considered this idea for the exact same reason. Ried was one of the most outspoken about it. Followed by Biden. Now its okay?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/po...yRxmXQdfrgB2A&

Even the Evil Bush would not support the idea in 2005. Now, Obama gives full blessing to any powergrab possible, this included.

"The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government," - Sen. Harry Ried, 2005

Proves alot in my opinion. "Okay for me, but not for thee..."

Even better...Mr. Hope and Change himself on the "nuclear option" in 2005:

https://twitter.com/cspanvl/status/403612892517261312

My how deep the memory hole goes...

Ried in 2005 decrying the very idea of what he just did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga91DDZxNng

Political hypocrisy is one of the stupidest things to complain about. All it serves is to enforce confirmation bias.

Because, in as much as I can cite example (unprecedented use) after example (not actually a rule) after example (promised just this summer to not filibuster) about nuances of the situation, the very expedient excuse of "zomg such hypocrite" somehow magically trumps all.

But I can go even further, since the republicans have rigged the system to always get their way. When they're in power, they can dismantle government. When they're not in power, they can grind government to a screeching halt.

And you know what? Fuck that. Republicans aren't even interested in governance, they're interested in the sheer, total destruction of our government. So when my choice comes down to "Do you want government to work? Y/N", I'm going to vote for the guys who are interested in working.

And the real kicker? Still requires 60 for legislation. So that ridiculous minority party in the senate can STILL get their way and fuck things up.

[Outlaw]

I saw a blurb about this on the news. I didn't pay to much attention.

“In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama Administration – during the last four and a half years,” said Reid.

That's ridiculous.

[SamanosukeShiva]

Well, wish we could have this badass Harry Reid years ago.