Harry Reid just gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate that will rightfully belong in the history books. He’s taking on the filibuster — at least as applied to executive nominations short of the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a massively gutsy move for Senate Democrats, especially given the fair likelihood that they will lose the Senate majority next year due to the nature of the seats that happen to be up. (They’d likely gain it back in 2016 — but still — two years is a long time.)
This is the sort of act that will be misinterpreted for decades, possibly centuries, as a partisan chokehold. Reid makes the case that Republican intransigence is to blame — and he has the facts and figures to back up his claim. So, if you’re going to have an opinion, it might as well be an informed one. Here’s the text of his speech (I believe “as-prepared” rather than a transcript); I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting in bold the facts that you should know as you decide whether this is a putsch — as skally and others will no doubt say — or a response to an unprecedented record of intransigent obstruction. We’ll be debating this for years — might as well start now!
In fact, here’s a nice graphic to start things off!
That’s comparing five years versus 220 years, if you’re counting. Yeah, maybe this situation IS a little unusual. (Source — someone on the internet.)
FULL TEXT OF REID’S SPEECH:
The American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken. And I believe the American people are right.
During this Congress – the 113th Congress – the United States Senate has wasted an unprecedented amount of time on procedural hurdles and partisan obstruction. As a result, the work of this country goes undone. Congress should be passing legislation that strengthens our economy and protects American families. Instead we’re burning wasted hours and wasted days between filibusters.
Even one of the Senate’s most basic duties – confirmation of presidential nominees – has become completely unworkable. For the first time in history, Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing his executive team or confirming judges.
It is a troubling trend that Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees even when they have no objection to the qualifications of the nominee. Instead, they block qualified executive branch nominees to circumvent the legislative process. They block qualified executive branch nominees to force wholesale changes to laws. They block qualified executive branch nominees to restructure entire executive branch departments. And they block qualified judicial nominees because they don’t want President Obama to appoint any judges to certain courts.
The need for change is obvious. In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama Administration – during the last four and a half years. These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote. But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the President his team.
This gridlock has consequences. Terrible consequences. It is not only bad for President Obama and bad for the United States Senate; it’s bad for our country. It is bad for our national security and for our economic security.
That’s why it’s time to get the Senate working again – not for the good of the current Democratic majority or some future Republican majority, but for the good of the country. It’s time to change the Senate, before this institution becomes obsolete.
At the beginning of this Congress, the Republican Leader pledged that, quote, “this Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress.” We’re told in scripture that, “When a man makes a vow… he must not break his word.” Numbers 30-2. In January, Republicans promised to work with the majority to process nominations… in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Exactly three weeks later, Republicans mounted a first-in-history filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense. Despite being a former Republican Senator and a decorated war hero, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s nomination was pending in the Senate for a record 34 days, more than three times the previous average. Remember, our country was at war. Republicans have blocked executive branch nominees like Secretary Hagel not because they object to the qualifications of the nominee, but simply because they seek to undermine the very government in which they were elected to serve.
Take the nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There was no doubt about Mr. Cordray’s ability to do the job. But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren – went for more than two years without a leader, because Republicans refused to accept the law of the land – because they wanted to roll back a law that protects consumers from the greed of big Wall Street banks. I say to my Republican colleagues, you don’t have to like the laws of the land. But you do have to respect those laws, acknowledge them and abide them.
Similar obstruction continued unabated for seven more months, until Democrats threatened to change Senate rules to allow up-or-down votes on executive nominees. In July, after obstructing dozens of executive nominees for months, and some for years, Republicans once again promised that they would end their unprecedented obstruction.
One look at the Senate’s Executive Calendar shows nothing has changed since July. Republicans have continued their record obstruction as if no agreement had ever been reached. Republicans have continued their record obstruction as if no vow had ever been made. There are currently 75 executive branch nominees ready to be confirmed by the Senate that have been waiting an average of 140 days for confirmation. One executive nominee to the agency that safeguards the water our children and grandchildren drink and the air they breathe has waited more than 800 days for confirmation.
We agreed in July that the Senate should be confirming nominees to ensure the proper functioning of government. But consistent and unprecedented obstruction by the Republican Caucus has turned “advise and consent” into “deny and obstruct.”
In addition to filibustering a nominee for Secretary of Defense for the first time in history, Senate Republicans also blocked a sitting member of Congress from an Administration position for the first time since 1843. As a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Mel Watt’s understanding of the mistakes that led to the housing crisis made him uniquely qualified to serve as administrator of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Senate Republicans simply don’t like the consumer protections Congressman Watt was nominated to develop and implement. So they denied a fellow member of Congress and a graduate of Yale Law School even the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.
In the last three weeks alone, Republicans have blocked up-or-down votes on three highly qualified nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered by many to be the second highest court in the land. Republicans have blocked four of President Obama’s five nominees to the D.C. Circuit, whereas Democrats approved four of President Bush’s six nominees to this important court. Today, 25 percent of the D.C. Circuit Court is vacant. There isn’t a single legitimate objection to the qualifications of any of these nominees. Yet Republicans refused to give them an up-or-down vote – a simple yes-or-no vote. Republicans simply don’t want President Obama to make any appointments at all to this vital court.
Further, only 23 district court nominees have been filibustered in the entire history of this country. Twenty of them were nominated by President Obama. With one out of every 10 federal judgeships vacant, millions of Americans who rely on courts that are overworked and understaffed are being denied the justice they rightly deserve. More than half the nation’s population lives in a part of the country that’s been declared a “judicial emergency.”
The American people are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock. The American people – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock. The American people want Washington to work for American families once again.
I am on their side, which is why I propose an important change to the rules of the United States Senate. The present Republican Leader himself said, “The Senate has repeatedly changed its rules as circumstances dictate.” He is right. In fact, the Senate has changed its rules 18 times by sustaining or overturning the ruling of the presiding officer in the last 36 years, during the tenures of both Republican and Democratic majorities.
The change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominees get an up-or-down vote on confirmation – yes or no. This rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than Supreme Court nominees a majority threshold vote – yes or no.
The Senate is a living thing. And to survive, it must change. To the average American, adapting the rules to make Congress work again is just common sense. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work – regardless of who’s in the White House or who controls the Senate. To remain relevant and effective as an institution, The Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of a modern era.
I have no doubt my Republican colleague will argue the fault lies with Democrats. I can say from experience that no one’s hands are entirely clean on this issue. But today the important distinction is not between Democrats and Republicans. It is between those who are willing to help break the gridlock in Washington and those who defend the status quo.
Today Democrats and Independents are saying enough is enough. This change to the rules regarding presidential nominees will apply equally to both parties. When Republicans are in power, these changes will apply to them as well. That’s simple fairness. And it’s something both sides should be willing to live with to make Washington work again.
This is, as Joe Biden once said with another word interspersed, a Big Deal. I’ve been a skeptic on filibuster reform for years because I feared that Republicans would use it as a tool against Democrats when the worm inevitably turned — but taking out its application to the Supreme Court and to legislation wins my support. Republicans already get pretty much whoever they want nominated to positions — and Democrats can’t have much of a worse situation than they have right now.
Republicans pushed the filibuster too far — and now they have broken it. Thanks to Reid, it will be only partially broken, and will still serve its purpose as applied to legislation. But finally, almost five years after taking office, President Obama may finally be able to have the right to staff executive and judicial positions that his predecessors have enjoyed. It’s way past time for that.
And, as this post was being completed, that time finally came.
After years of threats and warnings that ended with a whimper, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his Democratic majority on Thursday finally executed the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees.
Fifty-two Democrats voted against upholding the filibuster rules after Republicans again blocked cloture on the nomination of Patricia Millett to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted with Republicans to sustain the filibuster rules.
This is what you get when your obstruction creates a situation where things pretty much literally cannot GET worse then they already are.
Addendum: To be fair to those on the other side, a longtime contributor (whose name I’ll happily substitute in here upon acknowledgement of that preference) thinks that you ought to read this:
http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=27dac90e-11a3-48d1-b970-19c2894530a5
Unprecedented my foot. Dude is a MAJOR hypocrite.
What is this? The 327th time he’s threatened to do this? Let ‘er rip, Harry. Pony up. Don’t let karma kick you in the ass on the way out.
Karma? Maybe…if the increasingly irrelevant GOP can ever retake the Senate. That’s a big “if.”
Senate Republicans, predictably, overplayed their hand when it came to filibustering Obama’s judicial nominees.
They just can’t help themselves.
No argument here . . .
Wait, “hypocrite” or “all hat no cattle?” Seems your evidence suggests the latter.
Have the Democrats EVER been as abusive of their filibuster power as the Republicans have been these recent years? I don’t see how an objective observer couldn’t admit these are unprecedented times.
Bull, Vern. Reid is the poster boy for abusing this authority during the Bush years. His use was “unprecedented” at the time.
Now the shoe is on the other foot because of a partisan divide that he helped enable and he has the wherewithal to cry foul?
It’s like walking into a fist fight with a knife and complaining about getting shot. The gun was unprecedented! Well, so was the knife. Maybe he should have thought about the consequences of his obstructionism in 2002.
Right, Ryan — it was something that he clearly didn’t want to do. It was something that he would clearly do only if pressed to the limits by a devastating and unprecedented — LOOK AT THE NUMBERS — degree of Republican intransigence. And so the Republicans provided that.
I’m sure that they’re going to do much worse if and when they again have the power, based on the “WELL, HE STARTED IT!” principle, which is why I reprint his speech in whole here. He didn’t “start it” — and even if he had, what he did under Bush was a cherry bomb compared to the grenade that the Republicans have detonated under Obama.
Let’s not argue with abstract outrage. Look at the numbers. Deal with the numbers.
Bull bull, and more bull. The numbers are a convenient way to justify two sets of rules. One for Prince Harry, and the other for the rest of us.
Harry Reid is responsible for the shittiness in the Senate. He’s a major instigator provoking partisan divide in the last two decades.
This isn’t about numbers. It’s about disrespecting Democracy. You think the Republicans are behaving badly? You don’t change the rules everyone has lived by during your tenure. You take it to the ballot box and win because of the strength of your argument.
This is the kind of crap reserved for school yard bullies. His party is better and more respectable than the other one? Act like it.
I’m trying to sift the substance of your comment out from the invective and vague assertions.
“Bull bull, and more bull.” No.
“The numbers are a convenient way to justify two sets of rules.” Promising start, but vague. Unlikely to be true.
“One for Prince Harry, and the other for the rest of us.” Invective.
“Harry Reid is responsible for the shittiness in the Senate.” Half invective, half vague.
“He’s a major instigator provoking partisan divide in the last two decades.” Half invective, half vague.
“This isn’t about numbers.” Promising start, but vague. Unlikely to be true.
“It’s about disrespecting Democracy.” Half invective, half vague.
“You think the Republicans are behaving badly?” Good question. Yes I do! Reid explains why, with numbers, in his speech.
“You don’t change the rules everyone has lived by during your tenure.” Great — a substantive argument!
First of all, the Republicans were the ones WHO CAME UP WITH THIS PROPOSAL during the Bush Administration, so they don’t have much basis to complain about its equity. Reid’s reform is narrowly tailored — not the sort of full-scale elimination of the filibuster that McConnell has threatened, but a reaction to specific abuses of the system regarding executive appointments and judicial appointments. Will you be able to come up with counterexamples? Sure! The questions will be: how many of each (meaning, “how big has the problem been?”) and “with what justification?” As Reid says, a major problem with what Republicans are doing here is that they’re not even pretending that these nominees aren’t qualified; they are simply saying that they want to hold them hostage for other concessions that they can’t win legislatively. That’s new; its massive predominance is newer, and using the term “disrespecting Democracy” while defending such actions is almost beyond belief.
“You take it to the ballot box and win because of the strength of your argument.” Another actually debatable assertion!
The U.S. Senate is a anti-democratic institution, what with Wyoming having the same representation as California, and the filibuster is the most anti-democratic part of its procedure. So if we agree that “democracy is good,” you should be on the other side. In this case, allowing the neutering of a Presidency by political extortion is, I think, something that has already been rejected at the ballot box.
“This is the kind of crap reserved for school yard bullies.” Invective.
“His party is better and more respectable than the other one?” A matter of opinion, but I do think so.
“Act like it.” Just did.
I apologize to anyone who read through the reply above.
The tables will be turned after Nov. 2014.
Thank you Sen. Doofuss
Oh. Okay. I’ll take your word for it, that HE was unprecedented in the old days. But know that guns have been brought to the knife/fist fight, this has to happen.
No it doesn’t. Lame, Vern. Seriously LAME.
Good. The arcane rules of the Senate didn’t spring forth from God, nor do they date back to ancient Athens. It’s just procedures created by men, observed and abused by men, now changed by men. If requiring legislators to actually vote for or against an appointee instead of dicking around forever is antidemocratic, sign me up.
Fine, but you run on the issue and do it with a mandate so people understand that life long appointments are going to be made with the consent of only one political party . . . Kinda like what they do in China.
You don’t do it on a random Thursday afternoon. You certainly don’t do it after you’ve been the primary abuser for eight years in the prior regime.
In other words, you earn the moral authority and political capital. You don’t turn it out by fiat.
Hey, maybe the little creep has seen the light.
“Kinda like what they do in China.”
The distinction is that we have another party. Well, sort of. And one can argue – no, demonstrate unequivocally – that historically the Senate has operated for decades longer without a supermajority requirement for a cloture motion (1776-1916) than with it . This isn’t uncharted territory, it’s a throwback.
Other things happening in 1916 . . . Women not voting.
Surely the next thing on Harry’s agenda.
Touche.
Pontificating blowhard Harry Reid -“At the beginning of this Congress, the Republican Leader pledged that, quote, “this Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress.” We’re told in scripture that, “When a man makes a vow… he must not break his word.” Numbers 30-2.
Like we need religious instruction from that ass-hat Harry Reid.
Get it wherever you can, skally.
Forget about the Senate and wary about your people Golem!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/20/thugs-targeting-jews-disturbing-knockout-game/
Because the attacks on Jews are committed by Negros (in the article referred to as inner city youth) the crime is not reported by the Jewish controlled liberal media not to offend the Negros.
Once again Jewish liberalism makes Jews to pay for it. (same like your censorship Golem)
Time is on my side!
LOL, Haaa, Haaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaaaa, Haa, Haaa, Haaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaaaa, Haa, Haaa, Haaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaaaa, Haa, Haaa, Haaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaaaa, Haa.
Vern was kind enough to delete this from our “needs approval” pile, as I will probably do with any follow-up, but in this case I’ve decided to retrieve it from the trash. Every once in a while I like to share the love letters I get from Stanley with a broader audience.
By the way, this is actual anti-Semitism. Perhaps that’s why, to me, Denis Fitzgerald’s tweaking of Jordan Brandman in front of the Anaheim City Council seemed like a relatively small pop by comparison.
That’s probably Stanley’s quota for the month, though — maybe the year.
Yet more from the Bad Czech:
I’m not allowing the comments for now, but I will continue to bring you occasional tidbits relevant to his reputation. Remember, he doesn’t care about you, the audience.
Hypocritical is an understatement, on today’s “Morning Joe” show on MSNBC to the dismay of the Dems on the panel they played excerpts by then Senator Obama, then Senator Biden, and Senator Reid chastising the Republicans who were threatening to do the same circa 2005. If you listen to their long winded diatribes it is a a joke that they would now take this flip-flop action. Remember they wanted sequestration years back to ward off the Repubs but it came back to bite them in the ass when the Repubs used it.
The old adage “watch what you asked for , you may get it”
I forgot to mention I am not a Democrat nor Republican but a stauch Libertarian fed up with our dysfunctional two party system
On the Hill… nobody gives a crap about judges, really. Its just a way to pump money out of the social issue wing-nut groups on both sides.
NEWSFLASH: The judges hardly say anything about their judicial philosophy, they have life tenure so can do whatever they want anyway (David Souter), and the odda that a federal judge will be a position to move the country on a social issue is slim to none.
Ultimately, this is a victory for Republican because nobody on the Rep side wants a fight on social issues in the courts next years. All guns need to be on Obamacare. Let them have lefty judges, its actually pretty insignificant.
You obviously haven’t read anything about the battle over appointments to the DC Court of Appeals and the importance of that Court. Read up on that and I think you’ll come to a different conclusion.
They may not care on the Hill, but some of us in the hinterlands do.
Judges may have the ultimate power over some individuals and may directly have power over the success or failure of any one persons life, potentially more than anyone else in a govt role. They can also create law from thin air and we can be stuck with bad case law for decades.
As far as I’m concerned there are entirely too many bad judges that we are stuck with until they die or retire. Seems sometimes the really bad ones stay on waaay too long.
—
I’m not sure if I like removing the filibuster use in appointments or not.
It remains to be seen how well this rule change will work.
Short term it will probably be bad for liberty, quickly filling vacancies with “living document” judges, long term it may not be a problem at all.
I think it may well turn out to be very short sighted for HR and the Dems. If the Senate rolls over to the R’s, as I think it will, after the next election cycle and they control both houses they will certainly have precedent to make their own rules changes as they see fit.
It’s a sad statement overall of our system, that either party feels so removed from the ability to come to compromise or communicate, that it results in using tools like the filibuster, as often as they have or rules changes.
Carl – Oprah wants you and me to die (no time frame or method stated) – then things will be much better.
Oprah wants Skallywag and Overmyer to die?? This is big news! Shouldn’t we make this a featured story, Greg?
Inconveniently for some, I refuse to go quickly or quietly.
My intention is to stick around a while longer and be a continuing pain in the butt for those who wish to take the Rights of others away.
I will defend you from Oprah, Carl, with my dying breath.
She WAS really good in The Butler though…
And YOU get a car!
False. Oprah does not want Carl to die.
Oprah: “.. there are still generations of .. older people, who were born and bred and marinated in .. prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.”
I am pretty sure that Carl and I are both from the generation and race that Oprah wants to die.
We all have to die, old man.
Were you marinated in prejudice and racism? Doesn’t seem like Carl was…
you can really be an asshole at times ……
I was just asking, I would think you would say no!
I was raised in a bubble of inclusion not exclusion.
I still have a fundamental disconnect in understanding how prejudiced behaviors aren’t just pure fear and ignorance. I have debated that point before and usually fair pretty well.
I think it is ugly on everyone, who fan the flames. No matter who does it. I think Oprah should be held accountable, just like Martin Bashir should have received some sort of meaningful sanction for his comments about Sarah Palin. It’s sad to me that some of this is overlooked so blatantly on one side of the aisle but disproportionately flamed on the other.
Skally’s point is to get some focus and discussion about that, I think.
So in that light and before the skyrocket fades…
Why is it that statements from the likes of Bashir and Oprah get poo-pooed, and the media jumps all over any kind of gaff from the right and shows it under a microscope for days on end? Sarah providing many of those moments, most well deserved imho.
Did you truly read, in the context in which it was presented, “they have to die before social attitudes will completely change” as “they must die as soon as possible”?
If she were calling for a pogrom against the old, wouldn’t she have added “and you get a pitchform, and you get a pitchfork, and …”?
She presented no context with her quoted cold blooded statement.
At least she didn’t say, as one gay rights activist allegedly did, while looking at the age breakdown of folks who support or oppose gay rights, “All we need is one good flu season.”
Personally, I simply make a mental note of the kind of statements made by Oprah and Bashir as clues to their perspectives and prejudices. I filter everything I hear from them through those additional filters.
Understanding someones perspective, POV if you will, is key to understanding what they mean when they say something.
At this point in life I don’t get too riled up about much of anything, for very long at least. 😉
I hope everyone heard the CONTEXT of Bashir’s infamous remark. The way he wrapped up the history lesson was gross and classless and just begging to be taken out of context. It was a valuable and relevant commentary, but someone should have talked him down from that final sentence.
If you recall, in 2012 and mainly prior to the election I have made predictions about Obama and a reason why I am rooting for his reelection so I must remind you once a while that my predictions are realizing.
Obama is the best secret weapon how to destroy liberalism in the USA. We have 3 more years and I am exited to be a witness. Being living 22 years in the socialism so I know that at certain point it destructs itself. However, you do not know that.
I have also predicted that it will be Sarah Palin in 2016 to bring it all together. They know it and are soiling their pants.
Palin????
Haaaa Haaa. HAAAAA. Haaaaa hahaha. HAAAA
Just for you Golem, I have also predicted that Obama will pull the fast one on the Israel and he did. “Bibi” is correct in his assessment of any agreement with IRAN.
Same as Chamberlain return from München screaming that he has the peace agreement which will avoid WWII so will Obama soon and we know the rest of the story. Forget the European Five in this deal, they are historically losers.
I just wish that you would learn from the history rather than looking on the world like if it would be the Supper-Bowl.
Vern Nelson:
“I was just asking, I would think you would say no!”
I would not dignify that query with a response. And you already know the answer …..
Then maybe, just maybe, Oprah was not saying that SKALLYWAG needs to die.
At the very least her comment was mean spirited.
I know exactly what she meant, the words just came out of her mouth in an unfortunate way. She meant that there are a lot less bigoted, mean-spirited people in the younger generations than the older ones, and as humanity makes its inevitable slow march from womb to tomb, many unfortunate attitudes are gonna vanish from this earth.
It’s just plain true. Think of what happened with attitudes towards de jure segregation and miscegenation. The generation with the least tolerant attitudes died off and the change was cemented. That’s often just how things work; it’s no big secret.
“The generation with the least tolerant attitudes died off and the change was cemented.”……….. Hmmmmmm
Are you talking about Auschwitz?
No, Stanley, I was not talking about Auschwitz.
(Again, Dear Readers — I’m just documenting the atrocities here. Step up and see the real Anti-Semitism, not some watered-down version.)
And not a wise thing to be saying right now –
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20992590&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Winfrey, a billionaire .. thanks in no small part to her popularity among whites, told the BBC that the older generation .. may “just have to die” before America can get past racism.
In 2012, 60% of voters under 30 voted for Obama. Now more than half view him negatively. I hope Winfrey doesn’t think they need to die too now.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-obama-racism-disrespect-20131119,0,7367480.column#ixzz2lfMxQ0YH