One of the many problems with the Senate filibuster rule is that it requires us to think about the Senate filibuster rule.
The American public has other things to do! The American public is extremely busy! The holidays are coming up, and the American public’s workload is somewhat larger than, say, that of the House of Representatives, which is planning to show up for four full days in the month of December.
So give the American public a break.
The filibuster is, of course, the fascinating Senate tradition that allows a minority of members to stop action on a bill unless the majority can come up with 60 votes. Every once in a while the majority gets fed up with all this stonewalling and threatens to change the rules. This is known as the “nuclear option” because change is worse than atomic war.
“If the Democrats proceed to use this nuclear option in this way, it will be Obamacare II,” cried Senator Lamar Alexander on Wednesday. This was in keeping with a brand-new Congressional tradition under which Republicans making remarks on the floor of the House or Senate are required to mention the Affordable Care Act at least once every 35 seconds.
Veteran Democrats, who enjoyed throwing rocks into the Senate gears themselves when they were in the minority, have been reluctant to push the button. But now they’re furious over what’s been happening to nominations to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. It has three vacancies, and the Republicans have been refusing to allow a vote on the three Obama nominees to fill them. Tempers have flared.
Since the nominees were two women and a black man, Democrats have strongly suggested — well, you know.
“When the other side gets desperate, they turn to their last line of defense: accuse us Republicans of bias,” said Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa during a brief and rather desultory debate.
Yes, and when the Republicans get desperate they ... wait for it.
“There is no crisis in the D.C. Circuit because they don’t have enough work to do as it is,” said Grassley. “There is a crisis occurring now all across the country as a result of the health care reform bill that often goes by the terminology of Obamacare.”Honestly, it’s a wonder they make it through the opening prayer.
Do we think the Republicans are stopping the Obama nominees because one is black and two are women? Let’s be fair. Janice Rogers Brown, a George W. Bush appointee on the D.C. Circuit, is an African-American woman. Janice Rogers Brown wrote the recent majority opinion that held that the government couldn’t require employers to include contraceptives in their insurance coverage. Janice Rogers Brown once called the New Deal a “socialist revolution.” If President Obama nominated a couple of Janice Rogers Brown clones, and threw in a duplicate Clarence Thomas, the Republicans would be over the moon.
The D.C. Circuit Court hears a lot of cases about federal regulations. The eight judges who are currently sitting are divided 4 to 4 between Republican and Democratic appointees, but there are also six senior judges who are still working after semiretirement. Five of them are Republican nominees. So the president would naturally like to fill those three vacancies.
The first nominee to come up for a vote, Patricia Millett, was a sort of double dare. She was an assistant solicitor general during the Bush administration. She had argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. She volunteers at a homeless shelter. Her husband is a Navy veteran. Her husband was once deployed while Millett was arguing a case before the Supreme Court!The Republicans blocked her nomination, which made it abundantly clear that the next two — Georgetown Law Professor Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins, an African-American district court judge — weren’t going anywhere either.
The Republicans say they’ll never allow any D.C. Circuit nominations to go through because the court doesn’t have enough work for 11 judges, and filling the vacancies would cost what Grassley estimates is an additional $1 million per judge. “We’re looking to make sure every penny goes as far as it can,” said one of the minority leaders, John Cornyn.
You’ve got a lot of arguments to arbitrate, American public. Fortunately, I’ve got the answers.
The Senate should fill the vacancies. Then it can have a nice, reasoned debate about the size of the court when one side doesn’t have a ridiculously obvious partisan reason for wanting it smaller.
Three-million dollars is indeed a lot of money. But it’s way less than the $50 million Senator Grassley once tried to get for an indoor rainforest near Des Moines.
And the bottom line is that it’s a good thing to give the minority party some muscle to stop bad or extremist nominees from getting lifetime judicial appointments. But we have crossed the line to crazy when the minority party can announce that the woman who argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court can’t be on the D.C. District Circuit Court of Appeals because it’s too expensive.
Change the rules.
댓글 안에 당신의 성숙함도 담아 주세요.
'오늘의 한마디'는 기사에 대하여 자신의 생각을 말하고 남의 생각을 들으며 서로 다양한 의견을 나누는 공간입니다. 그러나 간혹 불건전한 내용을 올리시는 분들이 계셔서 건전한 인터넷문화 정착을 위해 아래와 같은 운영원칙을 적용합니다.
자체 모니터링을 통해 아래에 해당하는 내용이 포함된 댓글이 발견되면 예고없이 삭제 조치를 하겠습니다.
불건전한 댓글을 올리거나, 이름에 비속어 및 상대방의 불쾌감을 주는 단어를 사용, 유명인 또는 특정 일반인을 사칭하는 경우 이용에 대한 차단 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 차단될 경우, 일주일간 댓글을 달수 없게 됩니다.
명예훼손, 개인정보 유출, 욕설 등 법률에 위반되는 댓글은 관계 법령에 의거 민형사상 처벌을 받을 수 있으니 이용에 주의를 부탁드립니다.
Close
x