Congratulations to Cory Booker who was just sworn in as a U.S. Senator a few minutes after noon. The Democrats now have 55 members in their caucus. Sen. Booker’s first vote will be a cloture vote to end debate on the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) to be the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The vote is occurring as I write this and a lot of Republicans are voting no.
I’ll be interested to see how Sen. Booker adapts to the non-stop infantile trolling of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I do think he has some skill sets to build congenial relationships on the other side of the aisle, but I just don’t know how much that is worth these days.
Update [2013-10-31 12:29:54 by BooMan]: Vote is not over but it is already clear that there are 41 votes to block cloture. So, Booker’s first vote involved the Republicans blocking a black nominee with a filibuster.
Vote is not over but it is already clear that there are 41 votes to block cloture. So, Booker’s first vote involved the Republicans’ blocking a black nominee with a filibuster.
According to the Twitter, Watt is the first ever sitting member of Congress to be rejected by the Senate since before the Civil War. Pretty amazing.
Treating Mr. Watt like it’s before the Civil War is about par for the course with the modern GOP.
Yup, echoes of these two:
Looks like they’ve decidedcto block Millet and the other DC Circuit norms too. So that’s it, then. The judicial filibuster is going down.
Looks like they’ve decidedcto block Millet and the other DC Circuit norms too. So that’s it, then. The judicial filibuster is going down.
May the Senate Democrats have the balls to take the hard vote to end the filibuster. Nothing short of this will put the Republicans in their place. There’s nothing to lose; the filibuster was not supposed to be a vehicle for total obstruction. Government cannot function this way. Democrats stood up to the House crazies. Not it’s time to stand up in the Senate.
It’s unclear whether there are 51 Dems to overturn the fillibuster. Certainly that action is warranted, but to say there is nothing to lose is not correct. Say a Republican is elected president in ’16 (not unimaginable – Hillary’s commanding numbers are now falling) or in the future. With the fillibuster no longer in effect, what would stop them from repealing the ACA and putting on the bench far right judges? There will be a time – who knows when – that R’s have the upper hand. And they have shown themselves to be shameless in pursuit of their ideological agenda.
That’s a compelling point, but what makes you think that the R’s wouldn’t immediately eliminate the filibuster as one of the first things they’d do when they take control of the Senate? Either way, they’re going to damage this country even more than they already have, so really, the D’s truly have nothing to lose at this point.
exactly. Might as well do it now.
Both sides have been in the minority at some point and value the fillibuster as a tempering tool. Obviously the R’s have abused it. But both Dems and R’s fear the consequences of eliminating it. If Dems pull the nuke trigger for nominees, then the precedent will have been set for striking it for legislation as well. Will R’s eliminate it anyway? Dunno. But the fear of having no power at all as a minority has kept the Senate from going there up to this point.
The filibuster isn’t in the Constitution, and it benefits the Southern states. Time for it to go.
The fillibuster benefits the minority. Untold numbers of Robert Borks await confirmation under the next R President. Can’t say that I don’t want to pull the trigger either, but it’s a very risky play.
It has been used to stymie progressive legislation far more than protect the country against conservative legislation. If the Filibuster had not existed in the past it’s likely the country would be farther to the left.
No, the Republicans let the filibuster stay in 2005-6 because the Dems in Congress gave them 90% of what they wanted. IIRC, in the end only 3 judges were blocked and they were total nutjobs and rated as unqualified.
If the Senate approved 90% of the filibustered Obama nominees that had been held up, I’d be perfectly OK with keeping it.
Also you know why the GOP didn’t totally ditch it when C- Augustus was President? Because tools like Mark Pryor and Max Baucus rolled over for anything Dubya wanted.
Except that you’re still forgetting one thing: today’s Republicans aren’t the same ones from days of yore, the ones who can disagree but be pragmatic and compromise with their political rivals. Today’s Republicans are drunk-with-power ideologues who can’t see long-term, who are only interested in what they can do here and now. These Republicans, exemplified by “Tailgunner Ted” Cruz, will not hesitate to take away anything and everything that their “enemies” can use to thwart their twisted agenda if/when they ever regain power. You can keep claiming otherwise, but history is not on your side.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. The halfway reasonable R’s have just about become extinct. And the argument can be made that the next time an R President with an R majority Senate will just blow through the filibuster regardless what Dems do now. Maybe so. But just as much as the fear of once again becoming the minority haunts Dems today, so might that fear make R’s balk in the future. So the question is: do Senators feel that gains to be made by a majority now – or one in the future – become so concrete that a different majority cannot undo them later.
Judiciary appointments are life time, so I’d say that yes, it would be worth it, and it would do the nation as a whole an immense amount of good.
Three DC Circuit Judges, as important as they are, do not rise the same level as a Supreme Court Justice. I don’t disagree with your point, and the system is certainly already broken. But, having lived through the nominations of Bork and other radicals at different levels of the judicial system, it’s scary to think of those guys flying free in the future. That is what a lot of Dem Senators are thinking right now.
It’s not just about DC. There are vacancies throughout federal circuit that could be filled, that need to be filled. what Dem Senators should be thinking about is the fact that the next time they are in the minority they will lose their power anyway. I think the actions of Republicans in the past and the present would indicate that
The only time we stopped one of the really horrible judges was Bork. And sorry for yelling but HE WASN’T FILIBUSTERED. He was defeated in a straight up-or-down vote.
We haven’t stopped a Supreme Court nomination by filibuster in my memory, going back to the mid-70’s. We are given up nothing in terms of protecting the Supreme Court because the benefit to that Court from having a judicial filibuster, so far, has been nothing.
A quick Wiki scan showed that the filibuster, to date, has saved us from at most 5 Appellate Court nominees and that’s it. That’s nothing compared to the huge roster of excellent judges we’ve been denied service from by filibuster abuse.
It is exceedingly important that we pack the judiciary with left leaning judges. Once they are in they shape the judiciary for LIFE. Even when we’re out of power, these judges will be there to interpret the law properly, to a greater benefit for the people instead of corporations or law enforcement. It also creates a bench of people to choose to SCOTUS.
They GOtP WILL also end the filibuster to get their way, if that time ever comes ….. so your argument doesn’t hold water in todays political environment.
But, but, but, isn’t that the genteel upper chamber?!!
By deciding to continue their continuous filibuster regime–indeed, by expanding it to block patently unobjectionable nominees for patently improper reasons (such as losing “control” of DC circuit as a result of an election)–Repubs are making clear that they have no intention of keeping the filibuster when they next control WH and senate. They are basically shitting in the Dems’ faces now, they want the Dems to go nuclear and clear the way for them. Dems have no real choice but to oblige them, or they are weak and hapless beyond measure.
Repuns have brought the traditional workings of the senate and the gub’mint to a standstill. If 51 Dems don’t rise to their challenge, they’ll lose the benefits of a two term Dem prez AND (with absolute certainty) lose the filibuster when/if they try to pull what Repubs are now pulling.
Repubs are blowing up the nation’s institutions, one by one. Now, back to the Obamacare website, MSM!
Where’s Harry? Still running for Nevada boxing commissioner?
Mel Watt does have a few corrupt edge after his stint in the House, but letting him hang out to dry after having a pro forma hearing is kinda bad.
If it’s not Harry, I kinda would like to know who the Democratic hold-outs are. Enough of the effing institutional tradition and concern about the possibility of being in the minority; you didn’t use it to stop Roberts and Alito. And you’ve lost five whole years of Democratic appointments.
After standing together to oppose the shutdown, it back to fecklessness. Sheesh.
Uh, is Mel Watt’s seat in one of those super-dem districts? Because otherwise it’s not good for our future majority to be taking House members out of places like North Carolina.
Yeah, Watt’s new District is super-Dem; he got 80% of the vote in November. NC was one of those GOP-controlled States that gerrymandered the hell out of their Districts. Or was that gerrymandered the hell INTO their Districts?
At any rate, the Senate R’s filibustered a sitting Congressmember’s nomination to the FHA, and are going to do so with all the D.C. Court nominees to boot. Good God, that’s some broken government right there. Your move, Harry and the Dems.
oh ! isn’t that the genteel upper chamber?!!
___________________
cua go, tu bep, noi that