The pissing contest is over.

[rubato]

And it's about time.

Republicans had driven the use of filibuster to the highest levels of all time and were hurting the country by leaving judicial seats unfilled just to continue a pissing contest.

The adults can now govern for a while.

Yrs,
Rubato

[Lord Jim]

Oh gee whiz, after reading the subject line of this thread, I thought that an apology might be on offer...

Of course the reason I thought that is because I've been smoking a lot of crack...

[rubato]

Republicans, it turns out, have pushed up use of the filibuster each of the last three times they have been in the minority.
This last period they have used it so recklessly and with such total disregard for the effects on the country that using the nuclear option was overdue:






yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Calling even the extreme right wing of the Republican party who dominates and controls the rest fascists would have been hyperbolic at one time. But now ... not so much:





Maybe a slap in the face will wake up the few moderates and get them to stop the fringe idiots from driving the GOP bus any further into oblivion.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Gee, more Republican hypocrisy. What a surprise, huh?

WSJ Attacks "Radicals" For "Bloody-Minded" Filibuster Reform It Once Supported
Blog ››› 1 hour and 59 minutes ago ››› ELLIE SANDMEYER

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board attacked Democrats for passing a filibuster rule change as "radicals" who "view the minority as an inconvenience to be rolled," though the Journal supported the same change in 2005, when it pushed Republicans not to "let a willful minority deny the President's nominees a vote."

On November 22, the Journal editorial board attacked the rule change -- which allows the Senate to confirm judicial nominees with a simple majority vote -- as "Rules For Radicals," and claimed that the Democrats' vote was prodded through by "younger liberals in a hurry" who "view the minority as an inconvenience to be rolled." The Journal falsely claimed that the Senate rule change was "bloody-minded" behavior which would allow Democrats "to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals," but found a "silver lining" in the prospect of Republicans using the change for their benefit in the future:

The silver lining is that the end of the nominee filibuster will work for conservatives too. The next time they hold the Senate and White House, Republicans should employ the same weapon. Democrats are pretending that they are only breaking the filibuster for lower-court nominees, not for the Supreme Court. They can dream on.

The Journal seems to have forgotten the fact that it supported a similar push for filibuster reform in 2005. A May 2005 editorial urged Republicans not to "let a willful minority deny the President's nominees a vote on the Senate floor" (emphasis added):

This will not be the world's greatest deliberative body's greatest moment, and the only thing we know for sure about what will happen next is that the reputation of the Senate will suffer. It's a shame it has come to this. But at this point it would be worse if Republicans let a willful minority deny the President's nominees a vote on the Senate floor.

[...]

This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something. Republicans have gained Senate seats in two consecutive elections in which judicial nominations were among the most important issues, including against the Senate Minority Leader. The one Democrat from a red state who won last year, Ken Salazar of Colorado, did so by promising to oppose judicial filibusters; he now seems to have changed his mind after sipping the Beltway's partisan punch.

Perhaps the coming showdown will lead to more political bitterness, but we doubt Democrats will be able to follow through on their pledge to shut down the Senate; the public wants other things done. And who knows? If Democrats can't succeed any longer in legislating through the courts, maybe they'll even return to trying to win power the old-fashioned way, through elections.

A January 2005 Journal editorial also said that a move to change the Senate rules would "restore the Founders' intent when they gave the Senate the responsibility of confirming or rejecting a President's judicial picks. The Constitution requires a simple majority vote and says nothing about a super-majority of 60 being needed to stop a filibuster." The paper added: "Whether it's nuked or not, the judicial filibuster deserves to be defeated."

The Journal's current opposition to the rule change further hides the fact that President Obama's nominees have faced a significantly more hostile political environment than any previous administration. While Democrats under President Bush blocked a handful of nominees whom they considered ideologically extreme, Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct the confirmations of virtually all Obama nominees, including some positions for which they say they will accept no nominee at all. In fact, almost half of all filibusters of presidential nominees in the history of the United States have occurred during Obama's presidency:

[Big RR]

So the WSJ is inconsistent; that surprises you?

[Guinevere]

Live by the sword, die by the sword. This isn't a panacea, but maybe it will force the warring camps to realize they have to come to some reasonable resolutions on, at least, some of the nominees.

[Lord Jim]

Personally I've long felt it was inappropriate to require super majorities for Administration appointees; after all in those cases, the President is ultimately responsible for the actions of his appointees, and they only serve as long as he or she is in office. Barring something really egregious, he ought to be able to get the people he wants in those positions. (For example after his confirmation hearing I would certainly have voted against Chuck Hagle's confirmation, but I would not have supported a filibuster.)

The issue with judges is a little more problematic, (I wish they had done this when the Dems were holding up Miguel Estrada's nomination; what was done in that case was disgraceful...he was very well qualified,they simply didn't want a conservative Hispanic appointed to the bench) what goes around comes around...

I'll tell you one person who I'm pretty sure isn't happy about this...

Kathleen Sebelius...

One of the main reasons she hasn't gotten the chop over the Obamacare website fiasco is because Obama didn't want to add a protracted nomination fight for her replacement to his already heaping plate of problems...

This will make sacking her a lot easier...

[Long Run]

And the worm will turn, and the then minority-Ds will curse Harry Reid (as many already do). You might think the party whose major accomplishments are a failed trillion dollar stimulus, 5+ trillion in new debt, a healthcare overhaul that is currently a disaster, and have lost 20 points of popularity on most issues in the last year, might be a bit more circumspect in how they get rid of a 200+ year old Senate rule. But this is D.C. in the new millennium; it's all bad.

[rubato]

And the worm will turn, and the then minority-Ds will curse Harry Reid (as many already do). You might think the party whose major accomplishments are a failed trillion dollar stimulus, 5+ trillion in new debt, a healthcare overhaul that is currently a disaster, and have lost 20 points of popularity on most issues in the last year, might be a bit more circumspect in how they get rid of a 200+ year old Senate rule. But this is D.C. in the new millennium; it's all bad.

The stimulus is the reason we are doing better than the UK; in other words it worked very well:



Most of the new debt is due to Republican policies; the economic collapse, stupid wars based on lies, and the Bush tax cuts:.



The ACA has not begun yet but so far the implementation is ahead of the Mass. version which is a great success by all accounts.


The party who ought to be circumspect is the one which created the deficit and nearly all of the debt, caused the worst economic collapse in 80 years, and was in charge during the only two-term period when the median income went down since the depression; and that was BEFORE the collapse.



So that voters acquainted with the facts know that this administration has been hugely successful compared to the alternative.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

And the worm will turn, and the then minority-Ds will curse Harry Reid (as many already do). You might think the party whose major accomplishments are a failed trillion dollar stimulus, 5+ trillion in new debt, a healthcare overhaul that is currently a disaster, and have lost 20 points of popularity on most issues in the last year, might be a bit more circumspect in how they get rid of a 200+ year old Senate rule.

The way the Republicans got rid of "a 200+ year old Senate rule" was to abuse it until it was no longer viable.

[Andrew D]

The problem with this filibuster reform is that it does not go far enough.

The filibuster should be completely abolished.

This filibuster reform still allows the loser party -- the party which Americans overwhelmingly rejected, President, Senate, and House in 2012 -- to block what is good for America.

This filibuster reform still allows the loser party to block necessary legislation. So the loser party will still be able to prevent America from doing the things that so desperately need doing.

This filibuster reform still allows the loser party to block nominees to the Supreme Court. So when Scalia and Thomas die -- and it couldn't come soon enough -- the loser party will still be able to frustrate America's attempts to turn a right-wing Court into a good Court.

This filibuster reform is a good thing, and it has been far too long coming. But what we need is not filibuster reform but filibuster elimination.

[Econoline]

Oh yeah...that "200+ year old" tradition goes back how long?

[dgs49]

The theoretical benefit of the filibuster rule was that it forced the Party in Power to make some concessions to the Opposition, in order to get the supermajority necessary to break the logjam.

The increased use of the filibuster is mainly due to the polarization of the two parties.

If there are USSC vacancies while there is still a Dem majority in the Senate (14 months and counting), you'd better believe that Reid will implement the same strategy to get more left wing hacks on the Court.

[Andrew D]

The increased use of the filibuster is mainly due to the Republicans' deliberate polarization of the two parties and policy of obstruction at any cost.

If there are USSC vacancies while there is still a Dem majority in the Senate (14 months and counting), you'd better believe that Reid will implement the same strategy to get more brilliant progressives instead of more right-wing hacks on the Court.

Fixed that for you.

[Sue U]

I'd settle for just one.

[dgs49]

There is not one liberal on the Court who is qualified to launder Scalia's shorts.

[Sue U]

There is not one liberal on the Court who is qualified to launder Scalia's shorts.

FTFY.