The petition to Senate Democrats reads:
"If Republicans in the Senate won't allow an up-or-down vote on President Obama's nominees, use the 'nuclear option' to change the Senate rules to stop the Republicans' abuse of the filibuster. FOX News and the Republicans will go ballistic, but don't back down. If you stand up, we'll have your back."
Automatically add your name:
|
|
Thus far, Democrats haven't seized the opportunity to rein in Republican filibuster abuse.
But with the recent filibuster of all three of President Obama's highly qualified nominees for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the fight to reform the filibuster is coming to a head.
It looks like Democrats might be ready to step up to the plate and meaningfully reform the filibuster. We just need to make sure they know that if they stand up, we’ll have their backs.
Tell Senate Democrats: It's time to reform the filibuster. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be the second most important court in the country after the Supreme Court. And Republicans are obstructing the judicial nominations for reasons that have nothing to do with the individual qualifications of any of the nominees. Instead, Republicans are flatly objecting to filling the vacancies at all.
It's clear that the Republicans want the court to remain free of additional Obama nominees who might tilt the ideological balance of the court away from its current conservative orientation.
But allowing a minority of senators to stop the president from his constitutional duty of filling longstanding judicial vacancies, and allowing the minority in the Senate to do so for nakedly political reasons that have nothing to do with the fitness of the nominees, is contrary to how our system of government should work.
So now Sen. Reid is considering changing the Senate rules through a procedure known as the "nuclear option" to ensure presidential nominees for receive an up-or-down vote.
If the Republicans won't back down, Senate Democrats should take this first, long-overdue and much-needed step toward filibuster reform.
Tell Senate Democrats: It's time to reform the filibuster. Click the link below to automatically sign the petition:
http://act.credoaction.com/go/2778?t=5&akid=9498.179403.GUuk3Q
Thank you for speaking out. Your activism matters.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Automatically add your name:
|
|
Learn more about this campaign
Here are a couple of excerpts from an NPR interview yesterday with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) regarding the filibuster. Harkin's the senator who thought $450K/year is NOT the income of the middle class and said so during the Bush tax cuts fiasco last year.
Harkin's been a senator for 28 years, is a realist and doesn't mince words:
"I'm not afraid of Democracy. I'm not afraid of majority rule as long as the minority has certain rights, the rights to offer amendments. Not the right to win those amendments, but the right to offer those amendments and to have a debate and a vote on those amendments. I've always felt that way. But I do not believe that the minority has some right to absolutely stop everything."
"The late Senator Robert F. Byrd. He actually said that, yes, the Senate can change the rules with a simple majority. He admitted that. And it shouldn't even be called a nuclear option. That's not - there's nothing nuclear about it. Now, here's what I say to people, Robert. Why is it so sacred that you have to have 67 votes to change a rule in the Senate?
Let's just say, for example, that one party elected 90 senators one time. Let's say they change the rule to say, from here on out, it takes 90 senators to change the rules. Would that be acceptable? If that's not, why is 67 acceptable? It should be that eventually 51 senators ought to be able to decide what we're going to do here."
"Well, because the way the rules, the way the Senate is set up, you can have basically one or two people filibustering and they don't even have to be here. They can put in a quorum call vote and go off and do different things. Cruz didn't have to do what he did. He was just doing it for showmanship."
"I think there's a dirty little secret in the United States Senate that we all know but most of the people in America don't know. A senator has his or her power not because of what we can do but because of what we can stop. And no senator wants to give that power up. We each have to give up that little bit of power for the good of the whole country."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=246409440
Here are a couple of excerpts from an NPR interview yesterday with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) regarding the filibuster. Harkin's the senator who thought $450K/year is NOT the income of the middle class and said so during the Bush tax cuts fiasco last year.
Harkin's been a senator for 28 years, is a realist and doesn't mince words:
"I'm not afraid of Democracy. I'm not afraid of majority rule as long as the minority has certain rights, the rights to offer amendments. Not the right to win those amendments, but the right to offer those amendments and to have a debate and a vote on those amendments. I've always felt that way. But I do not believe that the minority has some right to absolutely stop everything."
"The late Senator Robert F. Byrd. He actually said that, yes, the Senate can change the rules with a simple majority. He admitted that. And it shouldn't even be called a nuclear option. That's not - there's nothing nuclear about it. Now, here's what I say to people, Robert. Why is it so sacred that you have to have 67 votes to change a rule in the Senate?
Let's just say, for example, that one party elected 90 senators one time. Let's say they change the rule to say, from here on out, it takes 90 senators to change the rules. Would that be acceptable? If that's not, why is 67 acceptable? It should be that eventually 51 senators ought to be able to decide what we're going to do here."
"Well, because the way the rules, the way the Senate is set up, you can have basically one or two people filibustering and they don't even have to be here. They can put in a quorum call vote and go off and do different things. Cruz didn't have to do what he did. He was just doing it for showmanship."
"I think there's a dirty little secret in the United States Senate that we all know but most of the people in America don't know. A senator has his or her power not because of what we can do but because of what we can stop. And no senator wants to give that power up. We each have to give up that little bit of power for the good of the whole country."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=246409440
WASHINGTON -- Filibuster reform advocates have been here
before. A Senate bogged down in procedural gridlock drives Democratic
leadership to threaten a change of rules, only to back away at the last
minute when a group of Republicans offer a gentlemen's agreement. The
agreement proves temporary, agitation sets in and the threats reemerge.
Lather, blather, repeat.
So, as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has once again raised the specter of upending the rules of the Senate in order to bring functionality to the chamber, there is no shortage of skepticism.
And yet, those around the majority leader insist that his determination is sincere this time. By way of evidence, one progressive activist sent The Huffington Post an invitation addressed by Reid's office to "supporters of filibuster reform." The invitation is for a Thursday event, where attendees can hear from Reid directly about "his thinking on changing the rules."
Such scheming usually doesn't happen unless political action is afoot. It appears that it is.
In an interview with The Huffington Post on Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the loudest champions of narrowing the filibuster, insisted that this wouldn't be yet another instance of the football being placed invitingly in front of Charlie Brown's foot. After a showdown this January resulted in a toothless set of procedural changes and another standoff this summer resulted in a fleeting pact between the parties, Democrats are beyond frustrated, the Oregon Democrat said.
"Members who hoped we could recreate the understanding and comity of the past -- which was to retain the ability to filibuster nominees with the understanding that it would only be used rarely based or related to a nominee's qualifications or if there was an exceptional concern -- now realize that that is impossible," Merkley said. "The new Republican strategy of blocking nominees solely based on the argument that they were nominated by this president has put a strike through the heart of that hope."
Aides on the Hill are equally adamant that this isn't some big bluff on Reid's part. One top aide told The Huffington Post that even if Republicans simply allowed for up-and-down votes on the president's three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the nexus of this current filibuster fight) it wouldn't dramatically alter the party's thinking.
"There is no indication that there is eagerness on our side that we could just take a few nominees and we will back off," the aide said.
Perhaps even more telling is that back-channel talks to avert the so-called "nuclear option" aren't happening at the level they were in standoffs past.
"There is nothing like that going on at this time," the aide said, when asked if the brokers of the last compromise –- Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) –- were trying to find a way around the impasse.
Whether Reid has the votes to actually move forward with rules reform is another question entirely. According to aides, the majority leader is personally whipping members and holding the number of votes he has close to the vest. He has been pitching a rule change that would allow for simple majority votes on executive nominees and district and circuit court judges. Supreme Court justices would still require a 60-vote threshold for approval under this plan, as would every bit of legislation.
Reid is planning to move fast regardless. An aide said a motion to reestablish the Senate rules is more likely to come this week than next month. After all, momentum is there. Grey beards of the Senate, such as Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), have expressed their support for changing the rules; something that was not a given in prior showdowns. In addition, some of the more prominent abortion-rights senators -- Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats of California -- have said they would be supportive of a rules change. Rules reform is something they have been hesitant to do in the past, out of fear it could open up the floodgates to anti-choice judges and legislation if Republicans retook the majority.
Merkley says fear of a future GOP majority is misplaced. For starters, he noted, those anti-choice judges have managed to get through the Senate during past Republican administrations even with the filibuster in place. More importantly, he argued, it would be naïve to think that a hypothetical Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), serving under a hypothetical Texan GOP President Rick Perry or Ted Cruz, wouldn't move swiftly to change the rules himself.
"I don't doubt that they would do it," he said.
The Huffington Post asked McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart, if Merkley's point was legitimate.
He replied, "Sen. McConnell has said the opposite."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/harry-reid-filibuster-reform_n_4311940.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
So, as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has once again raised the specter of upending the rules of the Senate in order to bring functionality to the chamber, there is no shortage of skepticism.
And yet, those around the majority leader insist that his determination is sincere this time. By way of evidence, one progressive activist sent The Huffington Post an invitation addressed by Reid's office to "supporters of filibuster reform." The invitation is for a Thursday event, where attendees can hear from Reid directly about "his thinking on changing the rules."
Such scheming usually doesn't happen unless political action is afoot. It appears that it is.
In an interview with The Huffington Post on Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the loudest champions of narrowing the filibuster, insisted that this wouldn't be yet another instance of the football being placed invitingly in front of Charlie Brown's foot. After a showdown this January resulted in a toothless set of procedural changes and another standoff this summer resulted in a fleeting pact between the parties, Democrats are beyond frustrated, the Oregon Democrat said.
"Members who hoped we could recreate the understanding and comity of the past -- which was to retain the ability to filibuster nominees with the understanding that it would only be used rarely based or related to a nominee's qualifications or if there was an exceptional concern -- now realize that that is impossible," Merkley said. "The new Republican strategy of blocking nominees solely based on the argument that they were nominated by this president has put a strike through the heart of that hope."
Aides on the Hill are equally adamant that this isn't some big bluff on Reid's part. One top aide told The Huffington Post that even if Republicans simply allowed for up-and-down votes on the president's three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the nexus of this current filibuster fight) it wouldn't dramatically alter the party's thinking.
"There is no indication that there is eagerness on our side that we could just take a few nominees and we will back off," the aide said.
Perhaps even more telling is that back-channel talks to avert the so-called "nuclear option" aren't happening at the level they were in standoffs past.
"There is nothing like that going on at this time," the aide said, when asked if the brokers of the last compromise –- Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) –- were trying to find a way around the impasse.
Whether Reid has the votes to actually move forward with rules reform is another question entirely. According to aides, the majority leader is personally whipping members and holding the number of votes he has close to the vest. He has been pitching a rule change that would allow for simple majority votes on executive nominees and district and circuit court judges. Supreme Court justices would still require a 60-vote threshold for approval under this plan, as would every bit of legislation.
Reid is planning to move fast regardless. An aide said a motion to reestablish the Senate rules is more likely to come this week than next month. After all, momentum is there. Grey beards of the Senate, such as Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), have expressed their support for changing the rules; something that was not a given in prior showdowns. In addition, some of the more prominent abortion-rights senators -- Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats of California -- have said they would be supportive of a rules change. Rules reform is something they have been hesitant to do in the past, out of fear it could open up the floodgates to anti-choice judges and legislation if Republicans retook the majority.
Merkley says fear of a future GOP majority is misplaced. For starters, he noted, those anti-choice judges have managed to get through the Senate during past Republican administrations even with the filibuster in place. More importantly, he argued, it would be naïve to think that a hypothetical Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), serving under a hypothetical Texan GOP President Rick Perry or Ted Cruz, wouldn't move swiftly to change the rules himself.
"I don't doubt that they would do it," he said.
The Huffington Post asked McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart, if Merkley's point was legitimate.
He replied, "Sen. McConnell has said the opposite."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/harry-reid-filibuster-reform_n_4311940.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
No comments:
Post a Comment