Five Blind Senate Democrats

Contrary to popular belief, at least five Democrats think the filibuster rules are working jusssssssssssst fine.

Senior Democrats say Reid will not have the votes to change the rule at the beginning of next year.




“It won’t happen,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said she would “probably not” support an effort to lower the number of votes needed to cut off filibusters from 60 to 55 or lower.




Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) echoed Feinstein: “I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.
“I think it has been working,” he said.




Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said he recognizes his colleagues are frustrated over the failure to pass measures such as the Disclose Act, campaign legislation that fell three votes short of overcoming a Republican filibuster Tuesday.




“I think as torturous as this place can be, the cloture rule and the filibuster is important to protect the rights of the minority,” he said. “My inclination is no.”






Sen. Jon Tester, a freshman Democrat from Montana, disagrees with some of his classmates from more liberal states.




“I think the bigger problem is getting people to work together,” he said. “It’s been 60 for a long, long time. I think we need to look to ourselves more than changing the rules.”




Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who is up for reelection in 2012, also said he would like the votes needed for cloture to remain the same.
“I’m not one who think it needs to be changed,” he said.

If you are like me and vehemently disagree with them, I think you should let them know.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Daniel Akaka
141 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Telephone: (202) 224-6361

Fax: (202) 224-2126

Jon Tester
724 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2604
Phone: (202) 224-2644
Fax: (202) 224-8594

Mark Pryor
255 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg

Washington, D.C. 20510

p: (202) 224-2353

f: (202) 228-0908

Ben Nelson
720 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 1-202-224-6551
Fax: 1-202-228-0012

You Don't Say...

So Harry Reid rejects the Republican compromises in the jobs bill, pares it down to just the essentials which are very popular, doesn't rely on vote counting for once and puts the bill up for cloture and magically the Democrats overcome a filibuster gaining 5 Republican votes giving the bill an up or down vote.

Mind you ConservaDem extraordinaire, and a real asshole IMHO on a personal level, Ben Nelson voted against it, AND Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg was out with illness.

Almost makes you think that maybe Harry Reid should put Republicans on the spot more often....

Dysfunctional

Paul Krugman has a must read today about the need to reform the Senate filibuster rules. As I said on another blog, if you think Lieberman et all pissed everyone off with this health care bill, just wait till financial regulatory reform and climate change are up for debate.

He's On A Roll

FINALLY someone or something has woken up Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and he has started attacking the Republicans for their unprecedented obstructionism!!!

Now if he could just take some of that and aim it at certain members of his own caucus...

Mr. Anti Filibuster

What a DICK!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Nothing Else To Say...

If you are waiting for me to say something about Joe LIEberman's latest fuckery you are wasting your time. I have said all I have to say about that asshole. Its time for a Democrat in the Senate to actually DO something about him. Period.

And Then There Were 60

Paul Kirk is your new junior Senator from Massachusetts:

Governor Deval Patrick today named Paul G. Kirk Jr. to serve as interim US senator, making the announcement in the presence of the immediate family of the late Edward M. Kennedy.

"He is a distinguished lawyer, volunteer, and citizen, and he shares the sense of service that so distinguished Senator Ted Kennedy," Patrick said at a news conference at the State House. "Paul will not seek the open seat in the special election coming up in January. But for the next few months, he will carry on the work and the focus of Senator Kennedy, mindful of his mission, and his values, and his love of Massachusetts."

The late senator's widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and one of his sons, Ted Kennedy Jr., watched from the audience as Patrick introduced his selection.

"This appointment is a profound honor," Kirk said. "I accept it with sincere humility."

Kirk, a longtime Kennedy family friend, reiterated that he would not run in the special election and said he planned to keep the late senator's staff.

I am still not sold on this move, but again it had damn well better equal 60 votes against a filibuster or the Democrats are screwed.

Not Sure If This Is Good News

The Hill

The Massachusetts Senate on Tuesday approved a bill that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to fill his state's vacant U.S. Senate seat by interim appointment.

The measure, passed 24-16, now heads back to both chambers for a routine procedural vote. If approved a second time, it would then head to the governor, whom lawmakers expect to sign the bill quickly.

The idea to revise state law and return Senate appointment power to the governor was first pitched by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the weeks before his death.

I certainly hope that since President Obama and the White House pushed so hard for Massachusetts to change their law so that Governor Patrick can name Senator Kennedy's successor that they are reasonably assured that no Senate Democrats are going to support a Republican filibuster of health care reform. If not, this may go down as one of the worst political moves in the history of this country. With that seat open the Democrats would have had cover to pass health care reform through the Senate with reconciliation. Not only that, but reconciliation would have forced an even stronger public option and guaranteed that the bill was truly deficit neutral.

Now with the Democrats once again having 60 seats in the Senate they pretty much have to push the bill through with normal procedures and all 60 Senate Democrats banding together to overcome a Republican filibuster. If not then Republicans will use it as proof that the Democrats are pushing something on the American people that not even all of our own members can support. On the flip side just to get all 60 Democrats to stay together there may have to be so much watering down of the bill that its not even reform anymore.

I am going to keep my fingers crossed that the White House is going to be able to herd cats in the Senate but I am more than just a little bit nervous about this development.

Let's Turn ALL Of Our Attention On Harry Reid

Yesterday Majority Leader Harry Reid muddied the waters on his support for a public option:

During a tele-townhall with constituents today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he supports a public option...but then he added an extremely important caveat. Reid said he doesn't think the public option ought to be a government run program like Medicare, but instead favors a "private entity that has direction from the federal government so people that don't fall within the parameters of being able to get insurance from their employers, they would have a place to go. "

That sounds suspiciously like Reid would prefer a so-called co-op system, which almost all reformers regard with suspicion, and many regard as a non-starter. Reid is ultimately more than just one vote, too. If the Senate passes a health care bill through the regular legislative process, he'll be the one marrying two different pieces of legislation: one which creates a public option, and one which creates co-ops.

Having read this breakdown from TPM yesterday I was upset of course but kind of shrugged it off. The reason being is that this is part for the course for Harry Reid. I can't think of anyone on the left, not one single person, who is happy with Reid's performance as Majority Leader. Time and time again he has failed to bring bills to the floor for up and down votes and its because of his lack of leadership why so many of President Obama's appointments still have yet to be confirmed by the Senate (anybody seen Dawn Johnsen lately?). But just now watching the funeral of Senator Edward M. "Teddy" Kennedy, and marvelling at his life's work, I had something of a lightbulb moment.

The grassroots left has been outstanding this year in terms of advocating for progressive legislation. There have been attack ads funded to run against both Republicans AND Democrats to try to bring pressure on them to support health care reform. Many of these projects have been very remarkable in that just a few people came together to produce and fund them and they have actually made a difference on several Democratic members of Congress.

Having said that, the one thing that has been a hinderance has been the fact that we have had to divide all our resources to attack these people individually in their home states. This is because with a so called "super majority" we needed every single Democrat to vote for cloture in order to get a health care reform bill to the floor for an up and down vote. But while I think those were worthwhile efforts, I think the time has come to pool all of our resources to bring to bear the full force or progressives against one member of Congress.

Harry Reid.

Many of the ConservaDems in the Senate feel safe because they aren't up for reelection next year anyway. And several of the ones that are come from very conservative states. Ironically enough Harry Reid himself may be the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate running for reelection next year. So it is time we gave him a choice, either we get health care reform with a public option or he doesn't get to be Senator any more.

I know some people will see this as a purity purge, I however disagree. Universal health care has been a plank of the Democratic platform for over half a century. If a person decides that they want to be elected as a Democrat then there should be at least some level of expectation that goes with that with support for universal health care being the lowest of bars. Otherwise what use is it to have a party or a platform in the first place?

To that end Harry Reid is uniquely positioned to bring as strong health care reform bill across the finish line. If he decides he wants to start twisting some arms and snatching some chairmanships the votes will inevitably come. But as long as he keeps this "just vote your conscious" attitude then we will continue to see every single progressive bill that makes it to the Senate be filibuster and therefore for them to pass just about every single one of them will have to be watered down. He has given all the power of Congress over to the rump Republican Minority without so much as a whimper let alone the roar we will now miss with Senator Kennedy. He can't even make the Senate Finance Chairman, Max Baucus, negotiate a health care bill in the full committee where the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is reflective of how the citizens of this country have voted in the last two cycles.

ENOUGH!

What we should do is simple. All of the money put together for ads should now be used to produce ads against Harry Reid. I would call them warning shots to get his attention both in Washington and in Nevada. The next step will be setting up fundraisers for which ever Republican decides to run against Reid next year. Third we should pledge to phone bank Nevada against Harry Reid next summer. We won't have to campaign for his opponent but just remind the people of Nevada how Reid has failed them over the last 3 years as Majority Leader.

Now I know that many will say that Democrats in Congress aren't afraid of the Netroots, but recent events have shown just how wrong they are. If Ben Nelson wasn't worried about the netroots he wouldn't be calling up people who appeared in attack ads against him. But Nelson himself is actually the little fish in a little pond. It is now time that we go big game hunting.

If there is one thing Harry Reid wants in this world its to continue being a Senator. We need to use that against him in order to get this health care bill done. Im sick and tired of complaining about Reid. I am sick and tired of wishing we had a better Majority Leader. Its time we stand up and DEMAND that he gets his shit together or we will all make sure to send him packing after next year's midterms. What damned difference does it make anyway to have 60 Democratic members of the Senate if we still can't pass progressive legislation?

I would much rather have 55 Democrats in the Senate with Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer or Pat Leahy as Majority Leader than continue on with 60 or more and have Harry Reid continue on in that role. Sometimes you have to add by subtracting.

Now, whose coming with me?

Imagine That

All of a sudden ConservaDem Senator Blanche Lincoln is coming around some on the public option in health care reform. Im sure those pesky attack ads put up by liberal and progressive bloggers didn't have anything to do with it....

BUHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Keep up the great work guys!

A No Win Situation.

With the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, President Obama has set up what may be an epic battle between the establishment GOP and their voting base. The problem is of course this, opposing Sotomayor on specious grounds will further alienate Hispanics from the Republican Party. On the other hand if Republicans in Congress do not vigorously oppose Sotomayor then their wingnut base, led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and countless other media hacks, will throw a major hissy fit. Now in my mind the calculus should be simple. Republicans in Congress SHOULD nip at Sotomayor's ankles a little bit and then confirm her with a lot of support from their side. At a time when the GOP is bleeding from just about every demographic, they can ill afford to lose Hispanics for a generation. But unfortunately the establishment GOP has shown little appetite for taking on the base of their party, even when they know not doing so will hurt them electorally. Not only that we have seen already this year how cowardly Congressional Republicans are when it comes to taking on Rushbo and his pals. I think its highly likely that Limbaugh and the rest will say some pretty disgusting and demeaning things about Sotomayor and if there aren't establishment GOP voices willing to pushback on the vitriol it might not be enough that they vote for Sotomayor. The Republican Party is now seen as a party for southern white males. This may end up pushing that perception to southern white RACIST males. Now hopefully they will grow a backbone in the next week or so and realize that the base will get over it if Sotomayor is confirmed but Hispanics will not if she doesn't. But I have no faith in their ability to lead their base instead of allowing the tail to wag the dog. I guess we will all have to see how this plays out.

What Do You Know About Jeff Sessions?

The GOP has predictibly chosen Senator Jeff Sessions to take over as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, taking over for the now defected Arlen Specter.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) will take over the ranking member position on the Senate Judiciary Committee after striking a deal with his more senior colleagues over the weekend, sources confirm to The Hill.

Sessions and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reached the deal that will allow the Alabama Republican to take over for Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), whose departure from the GOP last week left the committee without a ranking member.

Under terms of the deal, Sessions will serve as ranking member until the 112th Congress, when he will take over the ranking member post on the Senate Budget Committee. Current Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is retiring at the end of the 111th Congress.

Now with a battle brewing over President Obama's nomination to replace retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter I think we would do well to aquaint ourselves with Jeff Sessions and learn what kind of a guy he is. I found this post from digby to be particularly enlightening.

Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause célèbre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.

On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU ) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings

All of that's a GOP qualification for elected office in Alabama, so being rejected on that basis naturally vaulted him into the Senate. Making him the ranking member today means the Republicans will put their ugliest face forward during judicial confirmation hearings. But hey, it's their long, ongoing funeral.

Now in light of the fact that is very likely that President Obama will choose a minority and perhaps a woman to fill this post it will behoove us to make sure that this information on Sessions is out there so people can judge whatever his motivations might be should he choose to try to block this nomination. I won't even go into what it says about Alabama that they elected a guy like Sessions, but I will say that we can't allow someone whose mindset is still stuck in the pre Civil Rights era to hinder progress in this country. So get ready for the fight and arm yourself with information. I have a feeling we are going to need it.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

As the conversation heats up about who President Obama will select as the nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court its very important that we go back and look at the history of what top Republican Senators had to say about whether judicial nominees should be filibuster. MediaMatters ever so helpfully supplies us with some relevant quotes.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

"I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/12/05]

Kit Bond (R-MO)

"By resorting to filibustering judicial nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators, which began in 2003 by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are throwing overboard 214 years of Senate courtesy and tradition...The Constitution of the United States does not contain a word about filibusters. The Federalist Papers do not contain the word 'filibuster.' Rather, the Constitution lays out the standards for confirming judges. It does not require a 60-vote majority for confirmation. It requires a majority vote to confirm members of the Federal judiciary." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Sam Brownback (R-KS)

"It's important to note that the Constitutional option is still on the table. If one of the president's nominees is filibustered at any point in the future, I will support the Senate leadership's implementation of the Constitutional option. [...] All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances." [Brownback.Senate.gov, "Brownback Statement on Judicial Nominees," 5/24/05]

Jim Bunning (R-KY)

"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. [...] I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote." [Bunning.Senate.gov, "The Duty To Vote Up-Or-Down," 5/29/05]

Richard Burr (R-NC)

"If anything, we are saying, for 214 years this institution, the Senate, had a gentleman's agreement, and that agreement was that the filibuster would never be used for judicial nominees. For 214 years they showed restraint, even though the rule allowed them to do it because they understood that the process was so important to make sure the best and the brightest found their way to the bench. For 214 years a handshake was all it took [...] What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) & Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

"We both wholeheartedly support discussion and debate regarding judicial nominees. It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision. [...] Like many Americans, we believe that our nation's judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty." [The Atlanta Journal Constitution via Isakson.Senate.gov, "Filibusters obstruct the Senate's duty," 5/24/09]

Tom Coburn (R-OK)

"For the first 214 years of our nation's history, the president has been able to nominate judges and expect that those nominees would receive the courtesy of a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. During this time, the Senate operated within its Constitutional 'advice and consent' role. The president would nominate judges of his choice with advice from the Senate. The Senate would then either consent and confirm that nominee by a majority vote or reject that nominee...In 2003, however, obstructionist senators decided the system that was designed by our founders and practiced for 214 years was no longer fair. If the minority didn't like the judicial philosophy of one of President Bush's nominees they concluded it was their right to deny them the courtesy of an up or down vote through a filibuster. Instead of needing 51 votes to be confirmed, the minority unilaterally declared that judges who failed their liberal litmus test would need 60 votes to break their filibuster. Never before in American history has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote." [Coburn.Senate.gov, "President Bush's Nominees Deserve a Vote," 5/11/05]

Thad Cochran (R-MS)

"There should be no question in anyone's mind about my intentions. I will work in concert with our leader, and with the distinguished Majority Whip, Mr. McConnell, to end filibusters of judicial nominations in the Senate." [Cochran.Senate.gov, "Senator Thad Cochran Announces Support," 4/14/05]

John Cornyn (R-TX)

"I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President's nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/24/05]

Jim DeMint (R-SC)

"How can I advise and consent without the ability to cast a vote? Forty-one senators are preventing a bipartisan majority from carrying out the duty we were elected to fulfill. In 2003, Democrats used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations - all had bipartisan, majority support. This was unprecedented. [...] We need to end the undemocratic blockade of judicial nominees, which is why I have urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to consider the constitutional option. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grandstand and obstruct." [The State via Demint.Senate.gov, "It's Time for Votes on Judicial Nominees," 5/22/05]

John Ensign (R-NV)

"We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/11/05]

Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

"History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor." [Grassley.Senate.gov, "Talking Judges to Death," 5/8/05]

Judd Gregg (R-NH)

"'There never was a filibuster of a majority-supported judicial nominee until a couple of years ago... It is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Framers' intent as documented in the Federalist Papers and the notes of James Madison." [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]

"From a constitutional perspective, judicial nominations have the right to an up or down vote in the Senate, and the filibustering of these nominations is inconsistent with over 200 years of tradition in the Senate and distorts our system of checks and balances." [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

"All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]

James Inhofe (R-OK)

"But the Democrats, who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required to approve Mr. Estrada. If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution," Inhofe said. [Senate Floor Speech, 3/11/03]

John Kyl (R-AZ)

"For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. [...] This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05]

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

"Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.' [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

"Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/23/05]

Richard Shelby (R-AL)

"As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President's nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them. Federal judges are invested with extensive power and are given lifetime tenure. Therefore, I pay particularly close attention to the records, backgrounds, and philosophical views of all judicial nominees prior to voting. Given the tremendous shortage of federal judges, it is my hope that the Senate will move quickly to confirm judicial appointments." [Shelby.Senate.gov, "Issue Statements: Judiciary," accessed 4/15/2009]

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

"Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/05]

"You're getting my dander up now. It's not only Estrada; it is a new standard. If this sticks, if the filibuster sticks, it will mean that you will have to have 60 votes for any nominee. We are really changing the constitutional design of what it takes to basically nominate and approve any judge." [Fox News Sunday, 03/03/03]

The only major question left is if our mainstream media will remind these Senators of their past proclamations about the unconstitutionality of filibustering judicial nominees...

Filibuster Falsehood

I confess that I have been running around with my hair on fire casting aspersions at Harry Reid for not forcing the Republicans to filibuster the American Recovery and Reinvestmetn act. I thought it would be a much better idea than watering the bill down just to get three measly Republican votes. There was only one problem with that. It turns out that even with a filibuster we still would have needed 60 votes because of a point of order related to bills that affect deficit spending. Now honestly I would have thought this would have been presented in some story in the MSM about the stimulus bill. But lo and behold it took Kagro X over at his CongressMatters spot to break down why a filibuster really wouldn't have done any good. So for the rest of you out there, yes Harry Reid is still WEAKSAUCE, but on this particular issue he gets a pass.

Nate Silver Slays Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid By The Numbers!

I can SAY Senator Reid is a bad majority leader all I want to but it will still come across as my opinion. Nate Silver on the other hand today has presented unambiguous statistical PROOF that Harry Reid has been an EPIC FAIL in leading the Democratic Congress for the last two years. I encourage you to go to his site and check out the utter PWNAGE but I will give you just a little appetizer before you go.

B.R. raises several interesting points, but they ultimately point back to one thing: Harry Reid has been exceptionally ineffective as the Democrats' majority leader.

The number of cloture votes skyrocketed in the 110th Congress following the Democratic takeover of the Senate and Reid's assumption of the majority leader position. The Senate voted on 112 cloture motions in the 110th, exactly double the number (56) of cloture votes in the 109th Congress, and two-and-a-half times as many as the average number of cloture votes (44) over the previous nine Congresses. Of these cloture motions, 51 were rejected (meaning that opponents of a bill succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote) and 61 were passed.

and Silver ends with

The bottom line, however, is that the Republicans are filibustering more and more often because they can get away with it. If Reid can't get them to pay a greater public price, then the Democrats ought to find somebody else who can.

Hate to say I told ya so....