Nebraska Senators Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer just used up all the Republicans’ debating time on the nomination of Elizabeth Wolford to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. They were complaining that Harry Reid has changed the rules to allow judges to be confirmed with a majority of the senators’ votes rather than having to attain a supermajority of sixty. They talked up Nebraska’s unique unicameral legislature which is officially non-partisan. They talked about their inability, in some instances, to offer amendments to bills. They took great offense at the idea that they and their colleagues are “obstructionists.”
The most interesting part of the hour was when Sen. Johanns recalled how he felt on Christmas Eve 2009 when the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in the Senate. He complained that he felt like the Democrats were telling him to “sit down and shut up” and that his objections counted for nothing. He said that he felt the same way today as he watched the Democrats confirming one nominee after another.
Let me start with something simple. The Affordable Care Act was passed with 60 votes, meaning not only that it had a lot of support, but that it legitimately overcame a filibuster under the old rules and the rules as they exist today for legislation. Sen. Johanns might have disliked the sense of powerless he felt when ObamaCare passed, but he has no legitimate complaint about how is passed.
The second thing is that Johanns offered his critique during the debate over the nomination of a judge who was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a voice vote. What that means is that no one on the committee objected to her becoming a district judge. I’d like to point out that Ted Cruz and Mike Lee serve on the Judiciary Committee. Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn serve on the Judiciary Committee. None of them objected to Ms. Wolford’s nomination. But the entire Republican caucus (save Susan Collins of Maine) filibustered her cloture vote this morning and they are (right now) voting en masse against her confirmation. I can understand the cloture vote as a form of protest against the procedure used, but I cannot understand why they are voting against a judge that even Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions approved of in committee.
It was almost touching to watch Sens. Fischer and Johanns lament their inability to obstruct the president’s nominations. They reminded me of a kid who gets his ball taken away after repeatedly being warned not to throw it in the house.
But they are the kids who will look you straight in the face and tell you that they never threw the ball in the house. Never mind that broken vase.
she ultimately got confirmed 70-29.
I like unicameralism, and majoritarianism, too.
Minorities always find majoritarianism “tyrranical.”
Better that then having majorities suffer the tyranny of the obstructive minority.
Ask Hamilton.
The most interesting part of the hour was when Sen. Johanns recalled how he felt on Christmas Eve 2009 ..
Does he realize that to most people with a thinking brain he looked like a WATB?
Republican = whiny, self-pitying sociopath.
a kid who gets his ball taken away after repeatedly being warned not to throw it in the house.
I love that image: may I borrow it for my own use?
Oh, crap.
My kid is a Republican Senator…
Elections have consequences.
I really wonder what is going to happen in these states as constitutents sign up and begin to see what ACA is really about. Nebraska is now almost at 5% of expected signups per kossack Brainwrap’s chart
http://obamacaresignups.net/
and more have signed up for Medicaid/ SCHIP yet irrc Nebraska did not go for expanded Medicaid
Meanwhile, next door in Iowa they appear to be close to working out an Medicaid expansion alternate plan as the Iowa admin negotiates with HHS. (Something like 1/3 of Nebraska’s population lives in counties that border Iowa.)
yes, very interesting
In the abstract especially. Is it okay to give those discounts for not smoking etc.?
When is some R going to run on the platform of “I’m not a whiny-ass baby”????
Got to be honest, I’ve always thought the method used to pass ACA was a bit underhanded. Take a bill passed by a previous senate composition that you know damn well would not pass now and pass it in the house giving the current senate no say just because they’d oppose it.
Of course let me add that while I think it’s a bit underhanded I also do not object to doing it, nor am I saying it’s illegal. If the GOP wants to repeal it, win the numbers to do it or GTFO. I myself would prefer to repeal and replace with Medicare for All naturally.
The Senate had a say; they just did not have a filibuster. It was perfectly legitimate. The non-budget parts of the bill subject to filibuster passed first – elimination of exclusions of pre-existing conditions, for example. And there were 60 votes available to prevent a filibuster. The budget parts were vetted by the Senate Budget Committee and were passed without a filibuster on a majority vote–just like some of Bush’s budget items were.
Currently the repeal you want is in a bill filed by Bernie Sanders and Jim McDermott that repeals the individual mandate and replaces it with a Medicaid for All structure run through the states, that the states can supplement. They likely have links to the legislation on their web sites. It’s 189 pages. Take a look at it.