Nel's New Day

April 6, 2017

GOP Senators ‘Break’ an Institution

The Republicans loved the filibuster. They used it to create an unprecedented blockade of President Obama’s nominees for judge and executive branch positions, leaving key positions unfilled. But that was four years ago with a Democratic president. Today, GOP Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster for the Supreme Court so that lying plagiarist 49-year-old Neil Gorsuch could be confirmed as a life-time justice. No longer does a permanent member of the Supreme Court need at least 60 bona fide votes to make law for the United States. Fifty-one votes are just fine, according to Republicans.

The decision to erase the filibuster for the Supreme Court was made less than a year since the Republicans, the majority of the 115th Congress, refused to even give a hearing to President Obama’s justice nominee, Merrick Garland. [The above cartoon is thanks to Robert Hulshof-Schmidt, husband of blogger Michael Hulshof-Schmidt.] In the past, Republicans maintained that a rule change, such as doing away with the filibuster for judges, requires a two-thirds super-majority, and that former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) decided to “break the rules to change the rules.” Over 60 percent of these senators who made these protests are still in the 115th Congress. The comments below from their opposition four years ago show that rules are in the eye of the beholder—in this case Republicans.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) used an example of a football game to whine that the Democratic majority just changes the rules if they don’t allow the result that they want.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) claimed that ditching the filibuster would be “irreparably damaging the Senate.”

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) called the change four years ago a “power grab” that allows Democrats “to make decisions all on their own about every federal judge.” [Change Democrats to Republicans to show that the GOP senators did today.]

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) described the “Senate Majority” change as “an act of desperation.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) cited the removal of the filibuster as “unchecked power by the Executive Branch” and accused the removal of the filibuster as a “way to pack the courts with judges who agree with them” with “lasting damage to bipartisanship, the Senate, and the nation.”

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) complained about “embarking on a path that would circumvent the rights of the minority to exercise its advice and consent responsibilities provided in the Constitution.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) talked about her opposition to the 2005 GOP plan in erasing the filibuster, giving the majority part “unprecedented power to limit debate and block Senators from offering amendments” and opposed the Democrats taking the same action with a Democratic majority.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) described the change four years ago as “brute, raw force.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) referred to the change four years ago as “breaking the rules of the Senate in a raw exercise of partisan political power.”

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) said that the change would “break the rules to change the rules and force through a number of executive nominations” and demanded 67 votes to change the rule

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) talked about how losing the filibuster “damaged the Senate” with “President Obama’s lawless disregard of our statutes and Constitution.”

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) claimed that weakening the filibuster will “weaken the Senate itself,” making it “more susceptible to the demands of a smaller majority.” He also called the action “incredibly short-sighted,” which could be very true in 2017.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) said that destroying the filibuster would “destroy the very character of the [Senate] by citing a story from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to design the Senate  “as a deliberative body to produce thoughtful policy. The solution to Senate gridlock is not changing the rules.”

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) called the earlier change “a sad day in the Senate when Democrats are willing to ignore 225 years of precedent.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reiterated the term “raw power grab” that “washed away” the “advise and consent clause” for executive and judicial branch nominations. [Actually, Republicans buried that clause last year by refusing to consider Garland.]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) also repeated the “naked power grab” and asked why this moment was chosen “to hand the keys to the kingdom over to the President, a President with less check on his authority.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) lamented the “pre-scripted parliamentary hit-and-run, over in a flash and leaving Senate tradition and practice behind like so much confirmation roadkill.”

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) asked whether this decision would “apply to future legislation.” [McConnell claims it won’t, but he is unreliable in the truth sector.] Heller expressed his concern about protecting his state from a majority decision to move nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. He should remain concerned.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) wanted to take a measured approach because “to break the rules means you have no rules.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) commented that overturning the filibuster “made the Senate’s constitutional role to advise and consent on nominations merely ceremonial.”

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) declared that the result would be “a runaway Senate” much like “a runaway House” and “that’s not good for the country.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) decried that “the rules are being changed in the middle of the game” in “a partisan political grab.” Republicans are specialists in doing this.

Mike Lee (R-UT) said that changing the filibuster “serves no other purpose than to stymie the rights of the American people to have their voices heard.”

Sen John McCain (R-AZ) declaimed:

“I feel this is a dark day for the Senate. I don’t know how we can get out of it. It is the biggest rules change — certainly since I have been in the Senate, maybe my lifetime, and maybe in the history of the Senate — where it has changed by a simple majority by overruling the Chair…. Senator Reid says: I appeal the ruling of the Chair. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to overrule the rules of the Senate, by a simple majority vote, to overrule the Parliamentarian and the Presiding Officer of the Senate. This is what happened. When our rules say to change the rules of the Senate, it takes a two-thirds vote.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that without the filibuster that “advice and consent” means “nothing.”

Jerry Moran (R-KS) complained about breaking Senate rules.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was “saddened” more than angered because the “change will fundamentally alter our operations and lead us to being a less tempered body.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called the action bullying and breaking the rules and hundreds of years of precedent, “causing ore discord and disharmony.”

Jim Risch (R-ID) predicted that “the rule changes will have far ranging implications for the United States Senate and our democracy. “

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) claimed that “our rules have always ensured a voice for the minority in this body” and “cannot be changed without their consent — unless, of course, the majority decides it wants to break the rules to change the rules.”

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) said that the change will “carry implications.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) said, “If Democrats think that they deserve more power, they should earn it from voters at the polls in 2014, not swipe it with a drastic rule change in the Senate today.”

Sen.  John Thune (R-SD) also complained about breaking the rules of the Senate.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) described the change as “raw abuse of power” and “purely partisan efforts” that tarnished the integrity of the institution by ignoring 225 years of precedent and trampling the rights of the minority party and the millions of Americans we represent.”

In addition, a former senator called the change a “sad day” when the majority caused “the greatest alteration of the rules without proper procedure that we have probably seen in the history of the Republic.” That former senator is now Donald Trump’s Attorney General.

By removing the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, the Senate has encouraged presidents to pick ideologically extreme nominees, further politicizing the highest court in the nation. For many people, the Senate decision may be a blip on the disastrous media coming from the new rule of Dictator Donald Trump, including possible war with North Korea and Syria, but 55 Senators have voted to allow an unethical judge to make decisions for everyone in the United States for a possible up-coming 40 years. According to their own words, the Republicans have “broken” the Senate.

November 23, 2013

Moving Forward without the Filibusters

People are still trying to get over the shock that Democrats would actually take action against the obstructionist GOP and vote for a simple majority vote to confirm the president’s nominees.  After promising earlier this year, not to filibuster all the nominees, the GOP backed down on their agreement, stopping judicial nominees and threatening others. The Democrats had enough and voted 52-48 to remove the possibility of filibuster for all nominees except for the U.S. Supreme Court. Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (AK), Joe Manchin (WV), and Carl Levin (MI) voted with GOP senators against the rule change.

Out of 168 filibusters on nominations throughout history, 82 of them—49 percent—were during President Obama’s terms. Overall, 189 Obama executive nominees are awaiting confirmation in the Senate, including 85 for Cabinet-level agencies, and their nominations have been pending an average of 140 days, according to White House statistics.

filibuster There are 53 Obama judicial nominations currently moving through the Senate, 17 of which are awaiting votes on the floor. On average, Obama’s nominees waited almost 100 days longer to be confirmed than President George W. Bush’s judicial picks, according to Congressional Research Service data distributed by Senate Democrats.

executive nominees reid

The filibustered candidates were typically more conservative than progressive and therefore acceptable to the GOP. Republican Senators just tried to block all government activity from keeping a shortage of judges on federal courts to nullifying federal agencies by preventing them from having any leaders.

GOP senators have been very open about using the filibuster to block the president’s nominees. In an op-ed published by Fox, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) admitted that he supports the filibusters because he does not want Democrats to “switch the majority” on the D.C. Circuit. The conservatives went too far: they lost their power to stop any nominees from being confirmed.

The GOP had been increasingly using the filibuster rule to keep courts stacked with conservative judges who would then repeal laws. Two court decisions from the D.C. Circuit Court threatened to shut down the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that enforces much of federal labor law. Without the NLRB, employers can use intimidation to keep workers from joining unions, stop bargaining with unions, employ abusive work conditions, and, in fact, fire pro-union workers.

The GOP Senators had other reasons for retaining a majority of conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit Court. The judges struck down environmental regulations that could save tens of thousands of lives, restricted women’s access to birth control, and ruled that employers can legally keep workers ignorant of their rights.

Conservatives throughout the country are going to rant about the Democrats violated the wishes of the founding fathers. They’re wrong. Originally, both the House and the Senate used a simple majority to cut off debate, but the Senate dropped that rule in 1806 when Aaron Burr wanted it done. Yet there was still no filibuster rule in the Senate until until 1917 when President Wilson demanded the rule to overcome “a little group of willful men” opposing his proposal to arm merchant ships. The Senate voted 76-3 for a supermajority (two-thirds vote) for overcoming a filibuster. In 1975, the rule changed to allow just 60 votes to stop a nomination.

These are a few of the changes with a majority rule for confirming nominees:  

  • Regulating Wall Street: Conservative judges typically undermine financial regulation, and the GOP filibusters have been keeping any other judges from getting on the bench.
  • Labor market regulation: The conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit Board struck down President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Removing the filibuster will most likely put three of President Obama’s nominees on this court as an addition to the eight judges, half of them appointed by Republican presidents. Although this sounds balanced, six judges in partial retirement hear a fairly substantial load of cases. Only one of these judges was appointed by a Democrat president.
  • Climate change: The D.C. Circuit also controls decisions for pricing gas emissions externalities under the Clean Air Act regulated by the EPA.
  •  Filibustering Legislation: With this first step, the Senate may curb the consistent filibustering of legislation as well as nominees, opening up votes for legislative reform from privatizing Social Security to adding a public option to the Affordable Care Act.

There has been much hand-wringing  about how much worse the Senate is since the filibuster rule was changed. The comments would be funny if the gridlock had not been so tragic. Since the extremist Republicans took over the House through the election of 2010, Congress has had no major legislative accomplishments. The last three years will be known in history only for one government shutdown and two debt-ceiling crises. The Congressional record can’t drop below the zero number of bills legislated into law.

In a fit of petty pique, the GOP immediately refused to use unanimous consent to confirm a group of low-profile nominees before their next long recess. Observers can expect other GOP delaying tactics such as blocking committees from holding meetings and refusing to attend committee meetings to deny the necessary quorum for moving nominations to the floor. If the GOP chooses, they can demand the possible 30 hours of Senate debate on each appeals court and Cabinet-level nominee. Those below Cabinet level get eight hours, and district court nominees get two hours. That’s an entire day—with no other business—for just one nominee.

GOP senators can also hold up judicial nominations by refusing to submit a “blue slip” okaying the choice. Ten pending judicial nominees have not had a Senate hearing because their home-state Republican senators have not returned their blue slips. In the case of Florida, Marco Rubio urged a nominee who he is now rejecting.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)  threatened the ratification of a United Nations-backed disabilities treaty to put most of the world on a par with U.S. policy. Carrying out their revenge plans, the GOP, supposedly public employees, will waste more taxpayer money through their obstruction and inaction. Stalling, however, will show the people in the U.S. that they are deliberately not working, a greater act of sabotage than the filibuster which allowed Republicans to not work and then campaign on the idea that it is government that it not working. When politicians complain about government employees not work, they are looking in a mirror.

The most popular statement in the media is that Democrats will be sorry about their vote to eliminate the filibuster for nominees if (when?) the Republicans control both the Senate and the presidency. This complaint ignores the fact that the a GOP majority in the Senate could easily take the same action that the Democrats did last week. Going to a simple majority now gives the Democrats at least one year, perhaps another two, and hopefully more than that to put reasonable, constitutional judges on the federal bench and keep federal agencies functioning.

July 16, 2013

GOP Backs Down from the Filibustering

High in the media during the last several days has been the term “nuclear option,” which means a simple majority vote in the Senate to remove the possibility of filibustering presidential nominees. In 1957, Vice-President Richard Nixon wrote the opinion that the U.S. Constitution gives the presiding officer the authority to override Senate rules in this way. After discussion in the majority party, Democrats seem to have the necessary 51 votes, and the GOP decided that they might need to play nice–at least temporarily. The entire Senate met secretly last night with no media present, and the Republicans reluctantly agreed to vote on a confirmation for seven of President Obama’s nominees.

This afternoon, Richard Cordray was confirmed to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by a vote of 66-34. President Obama nominated him 700 days ago, but Republicans thought that by refusing to confirm any  head for that agency that they could stop the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who helped establish the rules that aids consumers in issues such as credit cards and mortgages, was the first person considered for a nomination, but Senate GOP members adamantly opposed her nomination. They may now regret their earlier refusal to consider her because of the power she wields in the Senate.

Other pending nominees are three to serve on the five-member National Labor Relations Board and leaders of  the Labor Department, Environmental Protection Agency, and Export-Import Bank. President Obama had appointed two board members earlier, but the Senate maintained it was illegally done because they had not recessed when they left town. A federal judge decreed the temporary nominations unconstitutional, and the board was again left with only two members.

The current dysfunction of Congress began almost five and a half years ago in the night of President Obama’s first inauguration. Congressional GOP leaders met to plot against the new president, agreeing that they would provide no cooperation or compromise—just continual obstruction.  During that five and a half year period, McConnell consented to stop the blockage but failed to live up to his word.

GOP senators have loudly protested the filibuster when Democrats were in the minority several years ago. Reid’s office has helpfully compiled a video of GOP senators calling for filibuster reform in 2005. For example, former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), now head of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, gave a compelling case for blocking filibusters when he said,   “Now that the American people have clearly spoken by democratically electing a Republican president and a Republican majority in the Senate, 41 senators are attempting to deny the will of the people.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who voted to filibuster several of President Obama’s judicial nominees, proclaimed, “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period.” Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (R- AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and John Thune (R-SD) all labeled such filibusters unconstitutional.

After the GOP’s whining about the Democrats’ filibuster, seven Senate Democrats relented and voted to confirm the three nominees. One was Judge Priscilla Owen, who had taken thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions from Enron when she sat on the Texas Supreme Court before she reduced Enron’s taxes by $15 million. Another was Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who compared liberalism to “slavery” and court decisions upholding the New Deal to a “socialist revolution.”

In 1949, Senate rules created the current process requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster on a presidential nominee, 36 executive branch nominees have needed this “cloture” vote—almost half of them under President Obama.

According to last night’s agreement, filibusters are permitted for legislative and judicial nominees, but the GOP cannot refuse the president the right to fill key vacancies. Without a director, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cannot issue rules and perform other key tasks. Advancement in the climate change agenda is prevented until there is a director for the Environmental Protection Agency. Both workers and employers will be hurt without new members on the National Labor Relations Board with its function of ruling on collective bargaining disagreements between unions and companies.

The agreement last night developed from several developments:

McConnell has abdicated his former position of working compromises with Senate Democratic leaders and has been replaced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McConnell still has the title of minority leader, but McCain appears to be the party’s chief negotiator.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case about NLRB recess appointments. If SCOTUS supported the president, the GOP could no longer block recess appointments by saying that they didn’t really recess the Senate. Confirming nominees to the board will make the case moot.

Without confirmed members, the NLRB will not function after August 27. This may be part of the reason that Democrats confronted the GOP senators.

The Dems can threaten the nuclear option any time that they want. If the GOP senators start blocking executive-branch nominees, the threat can re-emerge. And it may happen soon.

Although the agreed-upon confirmations should be done before the Congressional August recess, the Senate will need to approve a new Secretary of Homeland Security because Janet Napolitano is leaving and a new commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service, a position empty since November 2012. President Obama will also need to name a new head for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, and the Senate needs to confirm three nominees to the D.C. Court of Appeals, a court second only to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some senior GOP senators, including McConnell and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), are sure to block those judicial nominees on the grounds that the court already has a quorum. It’s their position that all President Obama’s judicial appointments need to be blocked so that a future president, in GOP minds a Republican, can continue to load the courts with conservatives. One of the positions has been empty since 2005 when Chief Justice John Roberts left for SCOTUS.

Reid said that he has had to overcome 413 filibusters, and the GOP will probably not stop their games. There may be another secret meeting of senators regarding these and other nominees.

© blogfactory

Genuine news

Civil Rights Advocacy

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

AGR Daily 60 Second News

Transformational News; What Works For Seven Future Generations Without Causing Harm?

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Jennifer Hofmann

Inspiration for soul-divers, seekers, and activists.

Occupy Democrats

Progressive political commentary/book reviews for youth and adults

V e t P o l i t i c s

politics from a liberal veteran's perspective

Margaret and Helen

Best Friends for Sixty Years and Counting...

Rainbow round table news

Official News Outlet for the Rainbow Round Table of the American Library Association

The Extinction Protocol

Geologic and Earthchange News events

Central Oregon Coast NOW

The Central Oregon Coast Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW)

Social Justice For All

Working towards global equity and equality

Over the Rainbow Books

A Book List from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table of the American Library Association

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: