Dec
10
2014

Keep the 51 vote rule for Presidential appointments.

I’m with Allahpundit on the basic concept – essentially, the Democrats are going to flip it back to 51 whenever it’s advantageous to them anyway – but there’s another reason for not switching: it will reduce the number of symbolic appointments made by the current President.  This is not a theoretical issue, either: Barack Obama got embarrassed on several different occasions this year when he put up candidates that would never have gotten 60 votes anyway… and turned out to be incapable of getting 51, either.  I see no real downside in making the President squirm under the slightly unfocused, but definitely hostile glare of his own base.

11 Comments

  • Aruges says:

    Considering it was the normal way of doing things before The Dems started filibustering Bush’s nominees, it’s a restoration of normal order. We were going to do it back in 2005 until McCain and Graham put together a “Gang of 7” to “save the Senate”. Sanctimonious fools.

  • garfieldjl says:

    Moe, do we really want to act like Democrats, seriously why should we follow their example of trashing the country?

    Here is my suggestion, that Republicans propose a constitutional amendment to bring back the 60 vote fillabuster rule regard confirmations. Instead of acting like the Democrats, we’d be showing we’re better than the Democrats.

    • Outback_Jon says:

      Showing that they’re better than the Dems will do nothing. The only folks that care that the Republicans are better than the Dems already vote for the Republicans. It isn’t even an issue important enough to bring out more voters. And it would never get enough votes to become an amendment.

      • garfieldjl says:

        What if the Democrats scuttle the filabuster entirely the next time they have the Senate?

        Look, I understand the desire of getting a little revenge in, but I really don’t want to act like the Democrats.

        I suggest a Constitutional Amendment so that no one can ever pull the stunt that Harry Reid pulled, ever again.

        • acat says:

          Dude.
          .
          Harry Reid is hardly the first guy to pull a stunt, and he won’t be the last.
          .
          The Dems will never try to scuttle the filibuster, it’s way too valuable to them when they’re in the minority .. and I predict they’re going to be in the minority for a good while.
          .
          I want them cursing Harry Reid as the one who blew their best chance at blocking some of the more “controversial” (by which I mean “offensive because it threatens one or more Dem constituencies’ gravy train”) appointees that will be needed in 2016.
          .
          Mew

    • acat says:

      Nope.
      .
      Next time the GOP is in the minority and we only need to peel off a couple Dems to drop the numbers back below 50+1 to scuttle the next Sotomayor, it’ll be an easier bar to clear.
      .
      Please look into *why* it was 60 in the first place.
      .
      Mew

      • garfieldjl says:

        It is in place so that the Senate isn’t just some partisan majority rules, I won, deal with it…

        It means that the minority is able to block bad nominees, bad legislation, etc.

        • acat says:

          Actually .. no. That’s why the filibuster exists.
          .
          The reason for cloture on nominees being 60 is because the Dems hated Robert Bork and, after they found that they could block him, decided to block many other nominees who would have been perfectly acceptable ten years earlier ….
          .
          Keeping this just the way it is suits me just fine. There’s no real advantage into making the magic number 60, or 55, or 75 .. and *doing so* only appears to be “honorable” to those who don’t understand that 60 became the norm due to prior Dem dishonorable tactics.
          .
          Mew

  • BigGator5 says:

    OMG! We are going to highly regret this if we’re ever in the minority again.

    • acat says:

      You got a mouse in your pocket, Gator?
      .
      I *like* the idea of making it easier to block bad nominees.
      .
      Yes, it can *and will* cut both ways, but using rejection of valid nominees to shame the ideologue-senators out of office is a better response than coming up with some arbitrary “We Won” number.
      .
      Mew

  • Greg Q says:

    Of COURSE we should restore it to 60.

    Make sure 4 RINOs can’t sell us out on some nominee.

    Of COURSE, come 2017, with an R House, Senate, and WH we should completely nuke the filibuster.

    Yes, we don’t want to be as sleazy as the Dems? So what?

    Read up on the laws of war: when the other side violates them, your only recourse is to return the favor. And if you do NOT return the favor, what happens is violating the rules is rewarded, and you get more of it.

    The Democrats live in a mental universe where they get to do whatever they want, and nothing bad should ever happen to them because of it. It is a moral imperative that we make sure the real universe does not match their fantasy.

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com