The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

I'm not a Republican but as a practical matter I don't really have a problem with Shelby doing this. Other senators have had blanket hold policies for various reasons over the years (one famously automatically put holds on all tax legislation).What I object to is Senate leadership actually allowing a hold to slow down business.

Holds do not have to be observed. All a hold is, is a claim that if brought to the floor a senator will not vote for a unanimous consent agreement to move the bill along. Essentially a promised attempt to filibuster. So go ahead and call the potential bluff instead of saying "oh noes, we can't go ahead." Force a vote on the consent agreement and see if other Republican senators are willing to help out and if not, then onward with debate.

[scaeagles]

GD, it is all political. An up or down vote is an up or down vote, and whatever the reason state all it comes down to is trying to block the nominees from getting the up or down vote. I would suppose that there isn't a dem who really thinks a republican nominee is best for the job nor is there a republican who thinks a dem nominee is best for the job. The issue is who the President thinks is best for the job and giving the up or down vote.

[JWBear]

As GD said... There is a VAST difference between holding a single nomination because you do not agree with it, and putting a hold on EVERY nomination before the Senate just to extort pork for your state.

[scaeagles]

Politics is politics. No different than agreeing to vote for a health care bill because you get 300 million in pork for your state.

That being said, I wish to reiterate that I think what Shelby is doing is wrong. I just don't see any huge moral difference in the reasons. It's wrong regardless to disallow an up or down vote. If you think someone is wrong for a job, convince 50 of your colleagues.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Politics is politics. No different than agreeing to vote for a health care bill because you get 300 million in pork for your state.

That being said, I wish to reiterate that I think what Shelby is doing is wrong. I just don't see any huge moral difference in the reasons. It's wrong regardless to disallow an up or down vote. If you think someone is wrong for a job, convince 50 of your colleagues.

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.

[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.

[Alex]

Is filibuster wrong (should the health care bills be allowed to pass on a straight majority vote), or did you mean 40 of your colleagues?