Filibusters and Holds
| Mon Oct. 26, 2009 8:34 AM PDT
The Republican effort to block Obama's nominees to federal judgeships is, truly, without precedent. In the past there have always been a few high-profile fights, as well as a general slowdown toward the end of most presidencies when the minority party hopes that a few months of stalling will allow them to take office and fill the vacancies themselves. It's not pretty, but not surprising either.
But this presidency is different. Republicans are holding up everyone, and they're doing it during Obama's first year. Not a single appellate judge has gotten a vote yet:
And it's not just judicial nominees. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, pointing to the difficulties of responding to the global flu pandemic, recently noted that the Senate isn't allowed to vote on a surgeon general, because Republicans refuse to let Regina Benjamin's nomination come to the floor. "We are facing a major pandemic, we have a well-qualified candidate for surgeon general, she's been through the committee process. We just need a vote in the Senate," Sebeilus said late last week. "Please give us a surgeon general."
....People for the American Way reported last week that between 1949 and 2009 — spanning 11 presidents — there were 24 nominees on which cloture was forced. In the first nine months of Obama's first year in office, there have been five, meaning Senate Republicans on track to force more cloture votes on more Obama nominees than practically every modern president combined.
That's Steve Benen, who points out accurately, "And that doesn't include the secret and not-so-secret holds." Temper tantrum politics is alive and well in the modern Republican Party.
UPDATE: Oops. One appellate judge has been confirmed so far: Gerard Lynch for the 2nd Circuit. Sorry about that. Complete list here. More comparisons here.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Filibusters and Holds
Submitted by km on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 8:43 AM PDT.
Show of hands from everyone who believes the Democrats will use the same tactics the next time they are in the minority.
Anyone? Anyone at all?
Tit for tat
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 9:32 AM PDT.
The D's don't believe in Game Theory, and the R's know that.
Secret Holds (and a finger)
Submitted by Bhelverson on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 9:21 AM PDT.
The odious process of secret holds should be eliminated. If a Senator wishes to filibuster a bill, he should be forced to have the courage to openly do so. The "secrecy rule" is merely a Senate procedure that the Democrats have the votes to change.
And km, all you have to do is to look at the number of bush nominees who made their way onto the bench while Republicans were running the Senate. I won't show you a hand, but I will offer you a finger.
Ad idea
Submitted by Capn Phealy on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:37 AM PDT.
Someone needs to put together an ad consisting of soundbites from Republicans, during the Bush years, decrying the Dems' refusal to give the President's nominees an up-or-down vote. The clips should be non-name specific, just mentioning job titles ("the president", "Federal judgeships", etc.) There should be plenty of those available.
String 'em together, then end with a question: Why won't the Republican party listen to the Republican party?
And while we're at it, someone should start a collection to raise money to buy Harry Reid a set of balls, as he clearly seems to have left his somewhere.
I'm sure giving Olympia
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:46 AM PDT.
I'm sure giving Olympia Snowe everything she wants on health, no matter how incoherent her ideas, will change all of this.
Question re Senate holds
Submitted by PescaderoFred on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:59 AM PDT.
Is the ability of a Senator to put a secret hold on a nomination a feature of the rules, or is it some sort of mutually agreed convention? In either case, it's profoundly undemocratic and destructive. And I don't care if the Democrats think that they need it for those occasions when the Republic Party is in power. Get rid of it. Now.
er---60 votes?
Submitted by smrush (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 11:06 AM PDT.
There's gotta be at least one Dem holding up the works as well.
FYI, TPM has a story today about the OLC nomination of Dawn Johnsen, where Ben Nelson is refusing to vote for her. Even so, she's got 60 votes; the sticking point seems to be the Repubs refusing to limit debate time so would be able to force the entire senate to spend 30 hrs on this issue instead of others. Not sure why Repubs get the final say on this procedural issue, but gotta figure it's another Dem defector.
filibusters et al
Submitted by supersaurus (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 1:03 PM PDT.
filibusters and holds aren't in the constitution...both could be eliminated by changing the senate rules. there is no reason for dems to keep the filibuster since they don't have enough balls to used it when in the minority anyway.
but wait...a proposal to change the rules can be filibustered, right? and there is the special provision that cloture requires 2/3 if the filibuster is blocking a change in the rules. strom thurmond would be proud were he alive.
well, there is always the hope that the dems could obtain a 2/3 majority, but of course then they would have no incentive to change the rules until it was again too late.
What are they doing?
Submitted by Campesino (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 2:35 PM PDT.
None of the articles says what R's are actually *doing*. They sort of imply cloture votes but never give any specific examples of where these have been held. The D's have 60 votes and can carry cloture if they want to vote on nominees. Obviously they don't want.
All three of these posts/articles make it sound as though the the R's are practicing Jedi mind tricks on Harry Reid. There aren't any specific examples of specific R actions given. What are they really complaining about?
And we are going to the mat
Submitted by MNPundit (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 2:48 PM PDT.
And we are going to the mat for who? Technocratic Centrists.
I want 30-40 year old liberal fire brands. I want young brilliant lefties that will ram down decisions so hard and fast conservatives choke on them in the streets. After studying law for years and seeing the atrocity that the conservative movement has perpetrated on the American Judiciary there's one thing I want: Justice.
And the only way to get that is young powerful liberals.
This is no temper tantrum.
Submitted by clio on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 2:52 PM PDT.
It is a considered strategy to block progressive judges until the Republicans come back into power and can nominate conservative judges to promote a social and financial agenda that they are increasingly unable to implement at the ballot box.
Since congressional Dems are so spineless (not to mention bought off) and Obama seems unwilling to spend the time and political capital needed to ensure implementation of his policies through judicial and administrative appointments it would not surprise me if his first term ended with no more judicial appointments confirmed than have been confirmed at present.
I occasionally hope that Obama may show more leadership on these less obvious issues once he has the health care fight under his belt. But I am beginning to doubt it.
During the Bush years, the
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 3:34 PM PDT.
During the Bush years, the gang at Red State was perpetually in a lather over what they considered Dem obstruction to getting judges confirmed. The GOP obsession with judges borders on the creepy end of crazy because they have this idea that conservative law will stem the tide of societal degeneracy started by pot-smoking hippies in the 60's -- if they could just get the right set of guys on the bench.
Make no mistake, this is payback for what they see as deliberate stalling of judicial confirmations by the Dem controlled houses during the Bush years.
Weak stuff
Submitted by pireader (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 3:16 AM PDT.
Blaming the Republicans just doesn't cut it any more. There's a Democratic administration and 60 Democratic-caucus senators. They don't bring the nominations to the floor, debate on them and approve them because they--or some of them--don't want to.
Instead of nattering on about the Republicans, why isn't Mother Jones reporting about which Democrats are surreptitiously helping block the nominations. And why? (Maybe they have good reasons.) Also, what is the leadership is doing about it and why?
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
