Skip to comments.Reid sets up votes on nominees
Posted on 12/09/2013 6:46:18 PM PST by markomalley
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried Monday to confirm all executive and judicial nominations on the executive calendar more than 70 of President Obamas nominees.
Reid asked for unanimous consent to confirm them all, but Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) objected because he was still upset that the majority used the nuclear option to change the Senate filibuster rules.
Reid then filed cloture on just 10 of the nominees. Starting Wednesday, the Senate will likely spend the rest of the week voting on the nominee, which included Jeh Johnson to be Secretary of Homeland Security.
The rule change, which occurred before the two-week Thanksgiving break, allows a simple majority of senators to end debate on an executive nominee before 60 votes were needed meaning the Minority Party's rights to filibuster have been limited.
How am I suppose to serve in the Senate when they change the rules? Alexander said on the Senate floor.
Alexander argued that Republicans are simply trying to use their constitutional right of advise and consent on nominees and that Reid was simply trying to manufacture a crisis.
But Reid said that argument was as flat as a bottle of beer that has been opened for three months. Reid said Republicans broke their promise to block only nominees in extraordinary circumstances.
Republicans warned that Democrats would regret the change once they are in the minority.
“Republicans warned that Democrats would regret the change once they are in the minority.”
Not they wont. McCain and Alexander will vote to change the rules back tot he way they were.
So the stupid party did what it usually does...NOTHING. But just wait. Eventually, after the DC Circuit is full of left wing nuts and the executive branch is riddled with Obamabots the Dems will regret this. Really.
I doubt it, republicans are suckers. Remember when Pelosi basically locked them out of all meeting regarding Obamacare?
How did republicans react when they regained power? The reverted back to treating the minority fairly.
Republicans should all vote present.
IF R’s get into the majority, they should impeach the judges rammed thru on party lines without advise and consent. Unfortunately, the agenda trail these activist travelers will have weaved will still be in place.
Does the Senate need a quorum to vote?
More pimps, whores and sluts nominated for government freeloader jobs by their communist massas.
"quorum - The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call."
“So the stupid party did what it usually does...NOTHING.”
I’m not trying to argue with you, but what exactly could they have done?
They could have stopped this from happening in the first place to start with, and that goes to Mitch McConnell.
I was also under the impression that any Senator can put a hold on any nomination. They should put a hold on all of them.
They’ve been there for decades...there’s got to be something they could do or could have done other than nothing.
Thanks for your reply, ModernDayCato. I agree with your sentiment that there would seem to be something they could have done. But I just can’t figure out what it would have been once the majority voted to take the filibusterer off the table.
I guess the idea is to have the b@lls or perceived b@lls where the other side won’t risk the consequences. The GOP showed no teeth whatsoever when this was being floated.