Support Free Republic.
Posted on 08/12/2013 7:41:20 AM PDT by cotton1706
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Democrats are still focused on getting at least one more judge confirmed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals — and hinted at more changes to Senate rules unless Republicans stop filibustering “literally everything.”
“People don’t focus much on the D.C. Circuit. It is, some say, more important than even the Supreme Court,” the Nevada Democrat said Friday during a lengthy appearance on Nevada Public Radio.
“We put on three people — I don’t think they deserve to be on any court, but they — we put them on there, and they have been terrible,” Reid said. “They’re the ones that said … the president can’t have recess appointments which we’ve had since this country started. They’ve done a lot of bad things, so we’re focusing very intently on the D.C. Circuit. We need at least one more. There’s three vacancies, we need at least one more and that will switch the majority.”
Three federal appeals courts have found that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board ran afoul of the Constitution, citing the definition of “the Recess.”
Reid noted that a number of Republican appointees had been confirmed to the court as part of an agreement to clear up an earlier logjam years ago, an apparent reference to the 2005 “gang of 14″ agreement.
A caller on the radio show asked Reid why there should be the ability to filibuster any business in the Senate; in his answer, Reid sought to separate nominations from legislative business. He suggested that further changes to curtail the ability of senators to stall Senate business might be inevitable.
“We’ve made some changes in nominations significantly. We have to be very careful how we handle the legislation,” Reid said. “I think it helps the Senate to get things done if we have a little bit more than a majority. We don’t want the House and the Senate to be exactly the same, but unless the — these characters who are filibustering literally everything, unless they change, I think that that’s where we’re headed.”
Last month, Reid reached a deal with Republicans led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona to avoid using the “nuclear option” for executive branch nominations in exchange for confirmation of several of the president’s executive branch nominees.
“I don’t need all 45 Republicans running to me and saying … ‘here work with us,’ all I need is a few, seven , eight. Remember, we have 54 — 55 we’ll have in October when Cory Booker’s elected out in New Jersey,” Reid said. “Come October, I only need five Republicans. I don’t need a lot. That doesn’t mean Democrats are going to in lockstep do everything that I think is a good idea, but most of them will.”
Reid has publicly assumed that the Newark mayor’s victory in the Senate special election is inevitable.
Reid somewhat telegraphed this summer’s “nuclear option” standoff back in April, also on Nevada Public Radio.
Earlier in the program, Reid said a local union leader was exaggerating concerns about the health care law.
Reid was asked to respond to complaints from D. Taylor, the president of the UNITE Here union, criticizing the effect of the health care law on his membership, which includes culinary workers.
Taylor has blasted the law for leading employers to cut workers back to part-time status and otherwise drop health care.
“I know D., like him, always been a good friend, good supporter. The unions have been good to me. However, he’s exaggerating. We’re happy to work, as the administration has done, to solve problems that exist,” Reid said. “But I would recommend that D. just calm down and stop frightening people because the law’s going forward. He should work with it. I’m working with him and the administration to try to solve some of the issues that he has talked about, but he’s exaggerated them.”
This is why we needed a republican to win the presidency last November, but unfortunately, Romney was nominated.
I have somewhat of a different take on this. I think it means that Reid knows that they’re going to lose the Senate, and it will stay GOP for several years, so he’s going to try and grab whatever he can..
Why shouldn’t they? The last threat of the nuclear option worked so well.
“I have somewhat of a different take on this. I think it means that Reid knows that they’re going to lose the Senate, and it will stay GOP for several years, so he’s going to try and grab whatever he can..”
Oh, of course. He also wants these people confirmed before an election year.
It would seem that the democrats are not “afraid to shut the government down”, eh GOP?
If that’s the case, Reid isn’t likely to do anything to weaken the hand he’ll have to play as minority leader. Under you scenario, if Reid eliminated the filibuster, his hands will be tied come January 2015.
1. Reid will not be the minority leader. Senate Dems won't do a Pelosi. After they lose control of the Senate, I look for him to retire. Schumer will win the job...he's been pushing for it.
2. It really doesn't make a difference about the filibuster from 2014-2016..because Obama would veto anything a GOP controlled Congress passes that he doesn't like. And the Senate will sit on any appts that he makes.
What did I tell you? I said that when the RINOs gave in to the Rats to “preserve the filibuster” a few weeks ago that all it did was give the Rats a new place to threaten to eliminate the filibuster and here it is.
Idiots like McCain and other assorted RINOs will never learn that about the left. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
“I have somewhat of a different take on this. I think it means that Reid knows that they’re going to lose the Senate, and it will stay GOP for several years, so he’s going to try and grab whatever he can..”
So if the Republicans have a 1 or two vote majority, but John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander, and Orrin Hatch are still in office, what difference does it make. If the GOP has a two vote majority and 2 of the above waffle, Biden can break a tie.
Both McCain and Graham seem intent on compromise at all costs. If they behave that way today, why would they change?
Well, it is the majority leader that decides what comes to the floor. If the majority leader is a repubican, even if an Obama nominee is voted out of committee, the majority leader can just not bring that nominee up for a vote.
So if no vote happens, nothing else of what you mentioned applies.
There should be no such concept as "switch the majority" when it comes to courts. The courts are supposed to rule on the law -- they are not legislative. If laws can be interpreted to mean one thing or another based on your political opinion, then the laws are useless and should be scrapped.
And it is amazing to me how Reid is willing to give away the power of the SENATE to determine it's own recess. There can be no other explanation as to why Reid kept the senate in session, but then did NOT complain when the president declared that the Senate was really in recess.
And given that Reid complained horribly when Bush made actual Recess appointments, and Reid made confirmation votes dependent on the President promising NOT to make recess appointments, it seems odd that he is so deferential to recess appointments now.
And the only reason there are filibusters is that Reid is incompetent. Every other senate majority leader has been able to offer amendments and other incentives to the minority so that they would allow debate to end on most things. Reid on the other hand does legislation behind closed doors, fills up the amendment tree so the minority can't even offer their own items, and invokes cloture before he brings a bill to the floor, essentially trying to cut off all debate before it even starts.
It is the last tactic that has led to the large number of "cloture votes" -- in most cases they were not needed, if Reid just brought legislation through the normal process, and allowed a week of debate and a few amendments, he'd get more votes.
Look at the Senate-passed immigration bill. It passed with 70+ votes; clearly there was no filibuster that would ever work. But because of how Reid managed it, there had to be several "cloture" votes, and many republican amendments were never allowed to see the light of day.
The democrats of the 80s would be embarrassed by how the current crop of democrats run the Senate.
Agree. This is the MO of the corrupt "Two-party Cartel". Even if they had a five majority they would find the necessary votes to satisfy the elitist goals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.