tyranny of the majority

http://news.yahoo.com/reid-expected-votes-lift-senate-blocks-obama-nominees-153711404.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate, in a historic and bitterly fought rule change, stripped Republicans on Thursday of their ability to block President Barack Obama's judicial and executive branch nominees.

The action fundamentally altered the way Congress' upper chamber has worked since the mid-19th century by making it impossible for a minority party, on its own, to block presidential appointments, except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The change in the so-called "filibuster" rule does not apply to legislation, which can still be held up by a handful of senators.

The now-defunct rule, a symbol of Washington gridlock, has survived dozens of attacks over the years largely because both major political parties like to use it.

The action will undoubtedly come back to haunt Democrats the next time they lose the Senate and the White House simultaneously. Getting rid of it was considered so momentous and divisive that it was dubbed the "nuclear option" in the Senate.

On a nearly party-line vote of 52-48, the Senate reduced from 60 to 51 the number of votes needed to end procedural roadblocks.

Obama, a former senator, praised the action, calling the filibuster "a reckless and relentless tool to grind all business to a halt."

The change will speed up the confirmation of Obama appointments to the courts as well as to cabinet and regulatory agencies.

One beneficiary is likely to be Representative Mel Watt, whose nomination to take over the agency that regulates mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was being blocked by Republicans.

But the immediate spark was Democratic frustration at Republican use of the filibuster to block Obama's appointments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, considered the nation's second most important court after the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Washington-based appeals court handles crucial disputes over the powers of the presidency and Congress, along with regulatory matters involving air and water pollution, banks, securities trading, telecommunications and labor relations. It has also been a feeder to the Supreme Court, with four of the current justices being former D.C. Circuit judges.

NEW RULE USED QUICKLY

Democrats quickly used the new rule by ending a Republican filibuster against one of those court nominees, Patricia Millett, on a vote of 55-43. A vote to confirm her nomination will be held later.

Millett is a Harvard-trained lawyer who worked in the administration of both Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican President George W. Bush. The American Bar Association gave her its top rating for the D.C. Circuit post.

As is often the case with stalled nominations, Republicans did not contend that Millet lacked qualifications. They simply do not want to give Obama more appointments to the important court, which they argue is underworked anyway.

For nearly two years, Republicans held up confirmation of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because they objected to the bureau's powers, not to Cordray, who has since been confirmed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, led the charge on the rules change, accusing Republicans of record obstructionism and saying the American public is right to believe that "Congress is broken."

Reid said that of the 168 filibusters against presidential nominees in U.S. history, half were held against Obama's picks.

"It's time to change," Reid said.

Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa fired back, "This is a naked power grab."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell insisted that there was no reason for a rule change, saying Republicans had confirmed the vast majority of Obama's judicial nominees.

McConnell also accused Democrats of taking the action merely to divert attention from the botched launch of Obama's healthcare law, known as Obamacare.

But with Congress's approval rating in single digits and no indication Republicans will compromise with Obama on much of anything, Reid decided to pull the trigger.

Reid assumes that voters, who polls show are disgusted with a largely "do-nothing" Congress, won't be upset by a rule change to confirm stalled nominees, Democratic aides said.

Reid also figured that if he did not change the rules, that increasingly anti-compromise Republicans would change them when they win control of the Senate, which could happen in next year's election, the aides said.

Stephen Hess, a congressional analyst at The Brookings Institution, said, "There's a good reason why it's called 'the nuclear option.' This does change the system."

"And whether it's good or bad depends on from whence you view it and at what moment," Hess said. "It is good for Democrats on the 21st of November, 2013. And it may not be good (for Democrats) if the landscape changes in the mid-term election" next year and Republicans take control of the Senate.

Asked whether the Democrats' move could worsen relations with Republicans and make it more difficult to pass legislation, Hess said "I don't know that relations this bad can get an awful lot worse."

 

It's not ideal but it beats tyranny of the minority.

 

democrats are now proven scum.

they are blowing up the rules of the senate to pack the d.c. court so federal agencies like the epa can terrorize business owning and tax paying americans with previously unconstitutional legislation.

figuring they can destroy the coal business and others before it is reviewed by the supreme court.

what is wrong with these animals in congress...
don't any of these democrats care about america?

 

Politifact looks into this assertion.

 

Won't affect SCOTUS conformation hearings but you can expect that should Obama need to fill one of these chairs (And it looks like Ginsburg will be the next to step down, barring some unforeseen event), he won't have the ease of a Kagan or Sortamayor. Graham and McCain are only 2 votes.

 

That may soon change, too. Quote below from Harkin.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191086-harkin-calls-for-more-rule-changes

“This has been escalating for a long period of time and it was time to stop it and that’s what we did this morning,” Harkin said. “Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”

 

Exactly. Mark Levin spent 2 hours on this last night. Pack the courts and it won't matter who wins at the ballot.

This may also be related to saving Obamacare one way or the other.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Cruz-court-pack-Obamacare/2013/11/22/id/538131

"The White House is trying to save Obamacare by packing the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., with judges who will rubber stamp its "lawless behavior," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says.

Senate Democrats, according to Cruz, enacted "the nuclear option" to prevent filibusters against appellate court nominees in order to make it difficult for Republicans to repeal the disastrous Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature healthcare legislation, The Hill reported...

...The heart of this action is directed at packing the D.C. Circuit (court) because that is the court that will review the lawless behavior of the Obama administration implementing Obamacare," said Cruz...

 

I really don't understand why we need a senate and a house of reps anymore.
In fact, why not just have Obama to tell who to go kill next in our future bogus wars and John Roberts to back him up on his next crazy ass scam.

 

More political hypocrisy.

When Republicans tried this in 2005, then Senator Joe Biden spoke for Senate democrats when he denounced any change in the filibuster rules. All Democratic Senators, including Harry Reid and then Senator Barack Obama, gave him a standing ovation.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/19/joe-bidens-filibuster-hypocrisy

Speaking on the Senate floor in May of 2005, Biden said, "At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. The nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in the Senate. That's it, they're done. Moderates are important if you need to get to 60 votes to satisfy cloture; they are much less so if you only need 50 votes. Let's set the historical record straight. Never has the Senate provided for a certainty that 51 votes could put someone on the bench or pass legislation."