Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is increasingly focused on the month of July as the time to exercise the so-called “nuclear option” and revisit filibuster reform, and he has privately told top advisers that he’s all but certain to take action if the Senate GOP blocks three upcoming key nominations, a senior Senate Democratic aide familiar with his thinking tells me.
Reid has privately consulted with President Obama on the need to revisit filibuster reform, and the President has told the Majority Leader that he will support the exercising of the nuclear option if Reid opts for it, the aide says, adding that senior Democrats expect the President to publicly push for it as well. “If Senator Reid decides to do something on nominations, the president has said he’ll be there to support him,” the aide says.
Reid is eyeing a change to the rules that would do away with the 60-vote threshold on all judicial and executive branch nominations, the aide says, on the theory that this is a good way to immediately break an important logjam in Washington — without changing the rules when it comes to legislation.
“This would take away the right to filibuster on nominations,” the aide says. “All executive branch and judicial nominations would be subject to majority votes. He would not do it on legislative items.”
“Joe Manchin called me yesterday. He thinks he has a couple more votes… . I may be able to get another Democrat or two. That would get us up to 57. We may only need three additional Republicans. So we’ll see.”"
Senate Democrats believe that they have several new votes in favor of a bill that would expand background checks for gun buyers, after weeks in which those who opposed the legislation faced strong political backlash at home.
The additional votes would still put the bill, a bipartisan compromise sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), shy of the 60 necessary for passage. And tellingly, no one boasting of growing support would reveal the names of those lawmakers ready to flip.
That should have read, “McCain: ‘I don’t understand why the GOP would filibuster.’” Most of us sure don’t understand why the GOP would filibuster 99% of what they freaking filibuster.
Well, actually we do. Their raison d’être is obstruction, their goal (other than acquiring more money and power, that is) is to tarnish President Obama and his legacy, and their appallingly gleeful reliance on perpetual blocking comes from the successes they’ve had.
I don’t understand it. The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.
Schieffer:
So you’d encourage Republicans not to filibuster?
McCain:
I would not only encourage it, I don’t understand it. What are we afraid of? … Why would we not want… Why not take it up and amend it and debate? The American people would profit from it. I do not understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leader has said we can have amendments.
– But Harry shook hands instead, although he has threatened to revisit filibuster reform from time to time, getting Democratic hopes up, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. We’ll believe it when we see it.
– Of course you will, dear.
– I will NOT get my hopes up, I will NOT get my hopes up…
– That would be novel. Just do it already.
From the tweets and comments I received, we all had the same reaction. And for good reason.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the tools he needs to overcome any initial filibuster of a firearms background check bill, but he may not be inclined to use them.
Indeed, the Nevada Democrat is biding his time, even as President Barack Obama embarks on an aggressive new push for votes on a variety of gun-related measures, including background checks and a new prohibition on assault weapons.
The trouble for Reid is the new process — established in January through modest filibuster rules changes — may have a fatal flaw in practice when the Nevada Democrat actually wants the bill involved to become law.
And what might that fatal flaw be? Reid’s New Rules do not prevent senators from blocking a bill from passing once it’s up for debate.
Did I mention that he still needs at least 60 votes? That he still needs a super majority? That real filibuster reform is still just a twinkle in sane and reasonable Democrats’ eyes? And that Republicans despise compromise so much that they won’t even use the word?
Here’s what “compromise” means to the GOP:
Here’s what Harry Reid means to those of us who are fed up:
Here’s what many of you may be doing after reading this post:
Harry Reid reminds me of those ineffectual, weary parents who you see in a public place repeatedly scolding his annoyingly obstinate, uncontrollable toddler, saying things like, “If you keep that up, you’ll get punished.” Then, “Just keep pushing, young man, and there will be no McFlurry dessert for you.” Followed by, “I’m warning you.”
And then does nothing.
And the kid keeps misbehaving.
In that scenario, Daddy Dearest was about as effective as Gene Wilder intended (not) to be as Willy Wonka:
Which brings us to the unprecedented use of the filibuster by the GOP, their favorite weapon, the one they’ve used to obstruct just about every proposal by President Obama and the Democrats… including judicial nominations.
Over the years, we’ve witnessed the Reagan/Bush conservative judicial trajectory and subsequent decline (see: Scalia, Antonin et al) of our judiciary, and as a result, our democracy, civil rights, and legal system. And since Obama took office, his judicial nominations have been moving at a glacial pace.
All that because Harry Reid insisted on that “gentleman’s agreement” with Mitch McConnell, the ridiculous handshake deal he made, saying he was “satisfied” with the Republicans just “agreeing” to be more reasonable. Remember that?
As you may recall, Jeff Merkley’s plan for reform would not have ended the filibuster, and the Dems would still be able to use the option to filibuster when they are the minority party. It would have taken more effort and transparency to voice opposition, but the filibuster would have remained intact.
But Harry shook hands instead, although he has threatened to revisit filibuster reform from time to time, getting Democratic hopes up, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. We’ll believe it when we see it.
The Nevada Democrat said that while he was “happy” with the modest rules changes adopted in January on a bipartisan basis, the number of pending judicial nominations led him to warn his colleagues of the potential for the chamber’s rules to be modified at any point in the year, not just at the opening of a new Congress.
“All within the sound of my voice, including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with, should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority, and I will do that if necessary,” Reid said on Nevada Public Radio.
Of course you will, dear.
Harry:
“We made changes, but the time will tell whether they’re big enough. I’m going to wait and build a case. If the Republicans in the Senate don’t start approving some judges and don’t start helping get some of these nominations done, then we’re going to have to take more action.”
“Just keep pushing, young man, and there will be no McFlurry dessert for you.”
But it does get more promising (I will NOT get my hopes up, I will NOT get my hopes up…). Reid said it’s not only about judges, but also the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“Now, we have the Republican-dominated D.C. Court of Appeals who have said, look, the president can’t even do recess appointments now,” Reid said. “So, we’re left with few alternatives, and we’re going to have to move forward and do something to change that.”
Yes, we’re going to have to do something. We’ve had to do something for years now.
“While this threat is entirely unsurprising, it’s outrageous that these senators are unwilling to even engage in a debate over gun violence in America,” Reid’s spokesman Adam Jentleson said in a statement to TPM. “No matter your opinion on this issue, we should all be able to agree with President Obama when he said that the children and teachers of Newtown, along with all other Americans who have been victims of gun violence, at least deserve a vote.”
Jentleson and Reid are absolutely right, the measures do deserve a vote, and if there were any justice, they would pass with flying colors.
I was one of many who called Reid’s office yesterday to insist on a vote so we can see exactly which Democrats (and of course, Republicans) will not support a ban.
This was one of those pressers you want to watch. I teared up.
Biden:
“[Background checks] worked. They all had a positive impact on public safety. They all had a positive impact on public safety.
“I did an interview… saying, ‘Well the impact on each one was only this, that, or the other.’ That’s like saying we shouldn’t have taken lead out of gasoline because it didn’t end global warming. It had a positive impact. It wasn’t the whole answer. Combined, these are common sense approaches…
“Three months ago a deranged man walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School with a weapon of war… And that weapon of war has no place on American streets, and taking it off American streets has no impact on one’s constitutional right to own a weapon… Justice Scalia… acknowledged that the government has a right to limit certain weapons from being able to be possessed by American citizens.
“So let’s get this straight: This is not about anybody’s constitutional right to own a weapon.
“This same young man… came loaded with one thirty-round magazine after another. One after another. An estimated 150 bullets were fired by this young man. And the police responded in two and one half minutes.
“Tell me that you can’t take off the street these weapons of war?
“Think about how many of these children and teachers may be alive today had he had to reload 3 times as many times as he did. Think about what happened… where Gabby Giffords… was shot… Think about when that young man had to try to change the clip. Had he only had a ten round clip, when he changed the clip and fumbled and had it knocked out of his hands, how many more people would have been alive?
“And tell me, tell me how it violates anyone’s constitutional right to be limited to a clip that holds TEN rounds instead of 30. Or in Aurora, 100.
“The vast majority of the American people, the vast majority of gun owners, even close to a majority of NRA members who only represent 4 million of the gun owners of America, think what the … president has proposed is simple common sense.
“It matters if even one of their children were alive because of what we’ve done.
“I’m not gonna rest, nor is the president, until we do all of these things. All of these things. Enhance the safety of the American people and do not diminish one iota, not one iota, any constitutionally guaranteed right of any American.“
Would you like to donate to The Political Carnival monthly? You can on our Support TPC page.
The Political Carnival is a fast paced Progressive political site that combines humor with dead serious, dementia with politics (synonymous?), and sprinkles in idiosyncratic posts with breaking news.
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below: Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
You can read the complete story here or on Wikipedia.
Subscribe to The Political Carnival Newsfeed via Wikio
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.
Link
TPC RSS Posts Feed
TPC Comments Feed
