Reid and Obama Destroy the Little Goodwill Left in Washinton

The US Senate Democrat majority today voted to end the 60-vote requirement for bringing to the floor for a vote the confirmation of presidential appointees to judicial and administrative positions. Supreme Court nominee confirmations were excluded from the new rule. President Obama agreed with the Senate vote spearheaded by Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid. Ironically, it was another Senate Democrat majority that enacted the 60-vote rule almost 40 years ago. The key vote was 52-48, with all but three Democrats - Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia - voting for the change and all 45 Republicans opposed. The move would limit the ability of the minority party to deploy the filibuster, a delaying and blocking tactic. In an institution that prides itself on giving power to the minority party and moving slowly on its business, the filibuster is the minority's main source of leverage. The rule change led by Senator Reid allows confirmation of nominees along party lines, by closing debate and allowing a Senate vote to proceed with just 51 votes. The Senate minority party, currently Republicans, until now had the power to require 60 votes, by invoking filibusters, in order for a confirmation vote to proceed. The change would apply to most executive branch and judicial nominations, except nominations to the Supreme Court, and would not apply to legislation. President Obama said he supported the Senate action, which he described as an appropriate response to an "unprecedented" level of obstruction by Senate Republicans to his nominees. He added that the GOP actions had contributed to Congress's low approval ratings, and that neither party was blameless in the matter of obstruction. The vote marks a major adjustment to the rules of the Senate, a proud, tradition- bound institution that hasn't made a change of this magnitude in more than a generation. The Wall Street Journal gave a taste of the importance of the unusual procedural debate, writing that almost all of the Senators were present and seated at their desks in the Senate chamber as the day's proceedings began, a rarity...the Senate's most senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) served as presiding officer, a role typically filled by junior members. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans had approved 99% of Obama's judicial nominees and that the change would diminish the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent'' role in assessing nominations. Senator McConnell ripped into Reid for triggering it. McConnell accused Democrats of picking a “fake fight over judges” to try and “distract the public” from the problems of Obamacare. “It only reinforces the narrative of a party willing to do or say just about anything to get its way,” said McConnell. “Once again, Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate...in order to change the rules of the Senate,...And over what? Over a court that doesn’t have enough work to do.” After the vote, McConnell declined to comment on the prospect of Republican retaliation. “I don’t think this is the time to be talking about reprisals. I think it’s a time to be sad about what’s been done to the United States Senate,” he said. Democrats say the filibuster has been abused for obstruction rather than as a last-resort vehicle for principled opposition. Republicans have "turned 'advice and consent' into divide and obstruct,'' according to Senator Reid. Since late October, Reid said Republican senators have blocked Obama's pick to lead the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and three nominees to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Shortly after changing the rules, Senate Democrats used the new, 51-vote threshold to advance to a final vote. After the Thanksgiving recess, the nomination of Patricia Millett to be a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be voted on, having cleared the procedural hurdle with support from 55 senators. Republicans previously had blocked her nomination under the 60-vote requirement. On Wednesday, Reid rejected a deal proposed by Senator John McCain to confirm one judge to the D.C. Circuit Court, according to an aide. The last substantial change to confirmation rules came in 1975, when Senators established the 60-vote threshold for ending filibusters. Previously, a 2/3 vote was required. The debate also marked a startling departure from a similar Senate debate in 2005, when Republicans held the majority and threatened to impose their own rules change. At the time, Democrats had blocked a set of judicial nominees chosen by President George W. Bush. Senator Chuck Schumer, who voted for today's change, said in 2005 that the rule change would end "the checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic.'' Senator McConnell, who opposed today's change, said in 2005 that changing the rules wasn't unusual : "Despite the incredulous protestations of our Senate colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate." BUT, the Republicans did not use their majority in 2005 to change the filibuster rule. After Thursday's vote, Senator Reid acknowledged that Democrats have taken a different position in the past. But he said political circumstances have changed and that Republicans have been using obstruction of nominees to undercut the legitimacy of the Obama presidency and policies they oppose. "Things have changed dramatically since 2005," Senator Reid said. "They have done everything they can to deny the fact that Obama was elected - then re-elected." ~~~~~ Today's Senate rule change may seem minor if you are not American. But for Americans, the Senate is considered the debating chamber that keeps the United States on an even keel, with no sudden jolts of policy. As an indication of the importance of the explosive action taken today by Senate Democrats under Harry Reid, the procedural motion Reid used is known as the "nuclear option" because critics warn it would obliterate bipartisan relations in the Senate. The specific procedural vote to change the Senate's rules was to sustain the ruling of the chair that nominees need 60 votes to advance to final passage. Democrats voted against sustaining the ruling of the chair and in favor of changing the Senate's rules. The final vote was 48-52. In his floor comments, Reid said the filibuster had rendered the Senate’s basic duty of confirming presidential nominees “completely unworkable....The need for change is so, so very obvious,” he said.“These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote, but Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote, any vote, and deny the president his team.” The two parties have effectively changed sides on the 'nuclear option' since Democrats gained control of the upper chamber in the 2006 election. Republicans accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for embracing a controversial tactic they criticized in 2005, when Republicans threatened to go nuclear to move then-President George W. Bush’s stalled nominees. “To change the rules in the Senate can't be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate by 67 votes,” Reid said in May of 2005. “They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right,” Reid said in 2005. ~~~~~ In any case, neither side, when it supports any status quo, can point to the US Constitution for support. Article I, Section 5.2 is clear :  "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Filibuster rules fall under "Rules of Proceedings" and can be changed by the Senate. It is up to the Senate Rules Committee to decide what can and cannot be done, and legal recourse is not possible inless the Majority Leader had acted in a manner that could make him subject to impeachment. Not likely here. The other relevant part of the US Constitution is Article II, Section 2.2 : "He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:..." ~~~~~ So, dear readers, we can now expect to have even more of the Washington dysfunction that has marked the Obama presidency. The solution required in the present poisonous atmosphere that prevails today in Washington is to elect a House and Senate with a majority of the same party in 2014...preferrably Republican in order to restrain the dangerous actions of the Obama White House.