The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I don't agree. It's a matter of motives. I may not agree with the reasons a Senator may object to a person being nominated, but I can respect his or her right to do if the objection is policy based. But we are talking about a Senator who has put a hold on ALL nominations; not because he has a policy disagreement with them, but because he is using it to extort pork for his state. THAT is an abuse of office, imo.

Is it any more an abuse of office than voting for health care because your state gets certain exemptions or 300 million in pork? That would be said to be a senator looking out for the interests of their constitutents. I don't see a different iexcept that it's a new level of blocking nominees, and I don't support blocking nominees from a floor vote. If the nominee is so offensive, one would hope they couldn't get a simple majority.

edited to add:
OK, so I understand a bit more.....from a story I read -

The U.S. Senate frequently approves non-controversial nominees without a formal roll-call vote, with a "unanimous consent" determination that can be blocked by just one senator, requiring a time-consuming process and 60 votes in the 100-seat chamber to overcome.

This definitely raises the stakes and is stupid. I don't know what "time consuming" means, but I would suppose even a couple hours per nominee would indeed result in a lot of consumption of time. I would suspect the unanimous consent vote can be overcome by a rules change, but I have no idea what that would entail. Shelby needs to grow up, but I would again state that this is no different than any other hostage holding or vote buying with district bribes that take place in any bill. It does indeed come at it from a different and dangerous angle, though, basically allowing one senator to control the process. I would bet a rules change can and should prevent this in the future.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would bet a rules change can and should prevent this in the future.

The rules change would be to get rid of the filibuster. All a hold is, is an announcement (public or not) of intent to filibuster. When faced with a hold the majority leader can do two things:

1. Try to wait until the hold is removed.
2. Bring forth the unanimous consent decree and hope the hold was a bluff. If it was not things go into a whole new limbo which is why they try to avoid starting the process if there's a hold on things.

Also, by generally accepted interpretations of Senate rules, changing the rule would require 60 votes. How likely is the minority (either minority) to give up that power willingly?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Is it any more an abuse of office than voting for health care because your state gets certain exemptions or 300 million in pork? That would be said to be a senator looking out for the interests of their constitutents.

May I assume you are referring to Ben Nelson? I find his actions just as reprehensible. I don't give someone a pass just because they have a "D" after their name.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

May I assume you are referring to Ben Nelson? I find his actions just as reprehensible. I don't give someone a pass just because they have a "D" after their name.

Ben Nelson, and also Mary Landreu (or however you spell her name) in Louisiana.

I don't doubt that you do, just as I think the Senator in question is being a dork. i'm simply trying to point out this sadly, practices like this are nothing new. This tactic specifically is, but it's all politics as usual.