[The Final Dakar]

Well, the Senate, really.
Senate Adopts New Rules on Filibusters - WSJ.com

A bitterly divided Senate voted Thursday to ease the confirmation process for most presidential nominees, a momentous and potentially risky step that limits the ability of Republicans to block President Barack Obama's choices for executive-branch and most judicial posts.

The rule change advanced by Mr. Reid makes it easier to confirm nominations along party lines, by allowing them to proceed with just 51 votes. Currently, Republicans have the power to require 60 votes, by invoking filibusters, in order for a confirmation to proceed. The change would apply to most executive branch and judicial nominations, but not to nominations to the Supreme Court and to legislation.

1. I'd rather see the return of the real filibuster

2. The rule change seems reasonably limited

3. You reap what you sow, Dems

[reader50]

I'd rather see the 60 rule remain. Obama has shown terrible taste on his appointments. A strong tendency to appoint industry insiders rather than anyone who might shake things up.

[BadKosh]

So when the Repubs take the Senate in 2014 they can ram all sorts of things through and the Democrats left will just have to sit down and shut up. Does this also apply to impeachments? I guess Harry is unfamiliar with the phrase "Whats good for the gander is good for the goose".

[subego]

Or "what goes around, comes around".

[The Final Dakar]

Shut up, you two. I already covered that in 3.

[subego]

Actions have consequences.
Karma's a bitch.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Shut up, you two. I already covered that in 3.

OK.

It does seem the Democrats are imploding, and are panicked because of their past performance.

OK so NOW I'll shut up!

[Snow-i]

I agree with you Dakar on all three points, especially #1. Lets make our congressmen work for it if it's really that important to their agenda.

That they would propose this halfway through Obama's second disastrous term gives me pause though. Who do they have in mind for this that will be so objectionable to Republicans and to what position are they looking to fill under the new rules?

Or is it that they are just prepping for the end of the administration by putting as many of their friends in place as possible?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That they would propose this halfway through Obama's second disastrous term gives me pause though. Who do they have in mind for this that will be so objectionable to Republicans and to what position are they looking to fill under the new rules?

Or is it that they are just prepping for the end of the administration by putting as many of their friends in place as possible?

While I don't blame your negativity I think they're tired of having concessions extracted just to put nominees to a vote. If someone really is objectionable, the moderate dems will dissent.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Actions have consequences.
Karma's a bitch.

Consider that in reference to your current insolence.

[climber]

I found it quite interesting that the President suggested in his recent new conference the reason this was needed was to prevent a small number of dissenters from blocking a vote. He also mentioned a need to encourage compromises. Is it just me, or is it disingenuous to suggest the Democrats can't compromise to the point of getting a couple Republicans to vote with them??

I guess on one hand it might be possible that every Republican has been unreasonable the last five years. I suppose it would depend on your point of view. But you do have concede it is also possible that other side (the Democrats) are not really interested in looking for the middle ground.

[climber]

I also found it interesting that President mentioned bills in addition to appointments. I guess nobody told him this was for Judge appointments only. Even Candy Crowley mentioned it was an odd reference. Maybe the recent theories of him being out of tough are accurate.

[subego]

Don't shit where you eat.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by climber 

Maybe the recent theories of him being out of tough are accurate.

I don't think I ever considered Obama tough.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I don't think I ever considered Obama tough.

Obama's portrayal by conservatives tend to be bi-polar.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I don't think I ever considered Obama tough.

Watch out for those wiry guys, they can surprise you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Watch out for those wiry guys, they can surprise you.

"Skinny guys fight til they're burger"

[climber]

Maybe someone should point out that if indeed the simple majority rules, then the Democrats should just step aside. Since after all the Republicans do have the majority of those repenting us in Washington today.

[OAW]

The filibuster is not outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution does say that each chamber of Congress can make its own rules (subject to the Constitution naturally) ... therefore this power is "derived" so to speak. That being said, the ability of the POTUS to make appointments to the Executive and Judicial branches is an explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution. The Senate also has an explicitly enumerated power to "advise and consent". But what the Constitution does NOT legitimately provide IMO is the ability for the minority in the Senate to simply "sit on its hands" via a filibuster and not fulfill its Constitutional duty to "advise and consent". If the minority objects ... then vote against it. But refusing to allow a vote flies in the face of what the Constitution explicitly states the Senate must do. It's worth noting that literally HALF of the filibusters in the history of the United States have occurred since President Obama was elected. Many of which were against non-controversial nominations. That is an UNPRECEDENTED level of obstruction that all but the most willfully blind can see. A Senate rule can't be used to NULLIFY and explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution in my view. A minority in the Senate does not get to refuse to allow a duly elected POTUS to govern. Senate Republicans have brought this on themselves. They have abused the filibuster without question ... well above and beyond anything the Dems have ever done. As Jay-Z said ...

"Numbers don't lie ... check the scoreboard."



OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The filibuster is not outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution does say that each chamber of Congress can make its own rules (subject to the Constitution naturally) ... therefore this power is "derived" so to speak. That being said, the ability of the POTUS to make appointments to the Executive and Judicial branches is an explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution. The Senate also has an explicitly enumerated power to "advise and consent". But what the Constitution does NOT legitimately provide IMO is the ability for the minority in the Senate to simply "sit on its hands" via a filibuster and not fulfill its Constitutional duty to "advise and consent". If the minority objects ... then vote against it. But refusing to allow a vote flies in the face of what the Constitution explicitly states the Senate must do. It's worth noting that literally HALF of the filibusters in the history of the United States have occurred since President Obama was elected. Many of which were against non-controversial nominations. That is an UNPRECEDENTED level of obstruction that all but the most willfully blind can see. A Senate rule can't be used to NULLIFY and explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution in my view. A minority in the Senate does not get to refuse to allow a duly elected POTUS to govern. Senate Republicans have brought this on themselves. They have abused the filibuster without question ... well above and beyond anything the Dems have ever done. As Jay-Z said ...

"Numbers don't lie ... check the scoreboard."



OAW

And when republicans take over, will you be screaming for the rule to be changed back?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And when republicans take over, will you be screaming for the rule to be changed back?

No. Simple fairness doesn't need to be manipulated or abused. And it certainly need not be feared. A simple fact that seems to have eluded the GOP since President Obama was elected.

OAW

[Chongo]

I was against it, before I was for it.

Obama Flashback: We Need to Rise Above an Ends Justifies the Means Mentality - YouTube

[climber]

Can someone please explain to me why in some minds of some, it's always the Republican's fault for not compromising, when almost in the same sentence the Democrats state they will not compromise?

I hope someone else can see the problems with both sides.

[BadKosh]

This is so Obama can appoint more radicals and commies to the bench to help him during impeachment hearings.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

No. Simple fairness doesn't need to be manipulated or abused. And it certainly need not be feared. A simple fact that seems to have eluded the GOP since President Obama was elected.

OAW

Do you even understand WHY it is important? Congress left the repubs out of the Owe-bamacare discussions and see what happened? Screw party lines, it is to slow down the process so the emotion driven folks might wake up and understand more complex issues. DELIBERATE.

I hope the Repubs set the tilt number back to 67 votes, and remove cloture.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I hope the Repubs set the tilt number back to 67 votes, and remove cloture.

This has got to be the single best point in this thread, BadKosh!

Filibusters are measured by cloture and cloture can be filed without a filibuster to end the prospect of a debate, let alone debate. It's a way to ensure the public does not hear how contentious and slimy an appointment is for example. Harry Reid has abused cloture to the point where the entire process is meaningless and I for one, cannot wait until he and his ilk are no longer in office and capable of hastening the demise of the US legislative process. Is there no rule they're not willing to break? No limitation they're willing to acknowledge?

This is what happens when you have a party in power and another party handicapped by incompetence. I'd like to think Republicans will be this principled in returning to a 67 vote threshold and cessation of cloture, but I'm afraid this grab of power will be all too tempting for them... and soon. I even found myself thinking; "Oh you silly Democrats will quickly learn to regret this move!", but that is exactly the WRONG thinking. The "reasonable limitations" are laughable as they're essentially a verbal commitment. Anyone trusting verbal commitments out of Washington? Yeah, you guessed it -- this will go for Supreme Court nominations faster than you can blink an eye.

[ghporter]

While I think filibusters have been misused to prevent even voting on whether to discuss appointments, I don't think limiting the filibuster per se is a great idea. This particularly limited change may at least point out that the Republicans have been using filibusters to avoid looking bad to their constituents by voting down appointees to courts that desperately need judges just because they were appointed by a president they don't like. In many cases, the Republicans have managed to stop the confirmation of very popular, bipartisan-supported judges, but by using filibuster, they haven't "voted against" a nomination, so they feel they haven't made themselves look bad. All this does is increase backlogs in courts that already have horrible backlogs (and may be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of a speedy trial - that applies at all levels, including appellate courts).

I know it's a pipe dream, but I'd like the people we elect and pay all that money to do what we supposedly sent them to Washington to do, instead of looking like a poorly disciplined middle school at lunch time.

[BadKosh]

See Federalist paper #62.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Do you even understand WHY it is important? Congress left the repubs out of the Owe-bamacare discussions and see what happened? Screw party lines, it is to slow down the process so the emotion driven folks might wake up and understand more complex issues. DELIBERATE.

But therein lies the rub. The GOP hasn't been using the filibuster to "slow down" the process. They've been using it to grind the process to a halt. I have no issue with a minority party being able to DELAY a vote via a filibuster. But I do have an issue with them being able to outright KILL a vote simply by sitting on their hands.

Again, if the GOP had not used more filibusters against President Obama than have been used throughout the entire history of the Senate prior to his election then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm going to pause for a moment to let the gravity of that sink in.

.
.
.

The filibuster was always intended to afford the minority the ability to blunt the power of the majority in rare and exigent circumstances. For those bills or appointments that TRULY set their hair on fire. It was NEVER intended to be a routine matter of course. It was NEVER intended to require a super majority for even non-controversial legislation or appointments. And it was certainly NEVER intended to be used as a tool to nullify the result of an election a party had lost.

OAW

[BadKosh]

When the Democrats /Obama actually nominate a qualified person their would be no problem. What ever happened to advise and consent? (not the movie)

[BadKosh]

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated
by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to
the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by
factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.
Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from
proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of
other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need
not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is
to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and
consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to
possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority
by a tenure of considerable duration.

A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the
object of government, which is the happiness of the people;
secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best
attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities;
most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to
assert, that in American governments too little attention has been
paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and
what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode
which increases the security for the first.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When the Democrats /Obama actually nominate a qualified person their would be no problem.

Do you even stop to think about what you post or are you only capable of regurgitating right-wing talking points that will only convince those too lazy to do 5 seconds worth of Google Fu?

U.S. Senate Republicans on Monday blocked a fourth nominee by President Barack Obama to a District of Columbia appeals court, defying a threatened rule change by Democrats to strip them of their ability to stop such picks.

On a nearly party-line vote of 53-38, seven short of the needed 60, Democrats failed to end a Republican procedural hurdle known as a filibuster and move forward on the nomination Robert Wilkins.

Obama wants to elevate Wilkins, a federal district court judge in Washington since 2011 who has received the American Bar Association's highest rating, to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

But Republicans refused to clear the way for the nominee, making the Harvard-educated Wilkins the fourth Obama pick to this court to be the target of a filibuster this year.

Republicans defy threat, block another Obama judicial pick | Reuters.com

A Harvard educated judge with the HIGHEST rating from the ABA. You can't get more "qualified" than that. So what makes him not in your estimation?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What ever happened to advise and consent? (not the movie)

Exactly! "Advise and consent" is in reference to the Senate as a body ... not to one particular party within it or a faction thereof. Consent is given or withheld by a VOTE. Refusing to allow a vote is a dereliction of a constitutionally mandated duty.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

“The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my ... colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”

...

[andi*pandi]

Democrats have always had the reputation of being spineless, of backing down, of cooperating, and this got them nowhere. So now that they are putting up a backbone on par with Republican stubbornness, they are the bad guy?

Not that I agree with anything going on anywhere, this is just observation.

[BadKosh]

Recent track record of his various nominations

1. Obama’s nominee to chair the National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman, withdrew over questions about payments from the Saudi Arabian government, business ties to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., and negative statements he made about U.S. support for Israel. After he resigned he issued a combative public statement blaming the “Israel lobby” for “character assassination.” 



2. White House “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones resigned after he it was discovered he signed a statement in support of a 9/11 “Truther” group. 



3. Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) withdrew his nomination to become Health and Human Services Secretary after it was discovered he failed to properly pay his taxes. 



4. Nancy Killefer, Obama’s nominee to serve as the government’s chief performance officer, withdrew due to tax problems.



5. Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) withdrew his nomination to become Commerce Secretary because of an ongoing investigation into whether he doled out government contracts in exchange for campaign money. 



6. White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers resigned after posing for photos at a White House dinner that a couple crashed through security to attend.



7. Jonathan Z. Cannon, nominated to serve as deputy director at the Environmental Protection Administration, withdrew over questions about a defunct non-profit, America’s Clean Water Foundation, where he served as a board member. In 2007, EPA auditors accused the non-profit of mismanaging $25 million in taxpayer funding.



8. Jide Zeitlin, Obama’s nominee to serve as U.S ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform withdrew his name while being accused of identify fraud and improper business practices. 



9. Erroll Southers, Obama’s nominee to serve as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew after refusing to answer questions about collective bargaining and false testimony he presented to Congress.



10. Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding, Obama’s second nominee to service as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew his name after it was discovered he received “service disabled veteran” status for sleep apnea.

As of July 30, 2012, six of the filibusters have been brought to a cloture vote. Three cloture votes were successful in breaking the filibusters, while the cloture votes on the nominations of Goodwin Liu, Caitlin Halligan and Robert E. Bacharach failed. Many nominations expired with the adjournment of the 111th Congress, but all were renominated in the 112th Congress with the exception of Robert Chatigny. NPR commented on the pattern of delay for certain nominees in an August 4, 2011 article, stating that "Some of the longest waiting nominees, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Charles Bernard Day of Maryland and Edward Dumont of Washington happen to be black or openly gay".[4] The nominations of Day and DuMont were eventually withdrawn. Senator Grassley commented more nominees could have been confirmed had President Obama respected recess appointment precedent by not making recess appointments while the Senate is in session.[5] Although President Obama has never used a recess appointment to appoint a nominee to the federal bench, he had appointed some executive agency officials in January 2012.

As a response to the continuing blocking of several of President Obama's nominees, Sen. Harry Reid on November 21, 2013 invoked the so-called Nuclear option and changed the Senate rules, meaning a simple majority vote will suffice for all nominees except for the Supreme Court

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Recent track record of his various nominations

1. Obama’s nominee to chair the National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman, withdrew over questions about payments from the Saudi Arabian government, business ties to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., and negative statements he made about U.S. support for Israel. After he resigned he issued a combative public statement blaming the “Israel lobby” for “character assassination.” 



Withdrew. Not filibustered. President Nixon's primary interpreter during his historic 1972 visit to China. Former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dennis C. Blair's choice to chair the National Intelligence Council. 30 year veteran of the State and Defense Department. Torpedoed due to a violation of the cardinal rule in DC. "Thou shalt not criticize Israeli policy." Apparently "unqualified" in your estimation.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

2. White House “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones resigned after he it was discovered he signed a statement in support of a 9/11 “Truther” group. 






Resigned. Nor a "nominee" that requires Senate confirmation.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

3. Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) withdrew his nomination to become Health and Human Services Secretary after it was discovered he failed to properly pay his taxes. 





Withdrew. Not filibustered. Former US Congressman, Senator, and Senate Majority Leader. Apparently "unqualified" in your estimation.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

4. Nancy Killefer, Obama’s nominee to serve as the government’s chief performance officer, withdrew due to tax problems.





Withdrew. Not filibustered. Over a $900 personal tax issue resolved in 2005. 4 years before President Obama even took office.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 



5. Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) withdrew his nomination to become Commerce Secretary because of an ongoing investigation into whether he doled out government contracts in exchange for campaign money. 



Withdrew. Not filibustered. Former US Congressman, 2-term Governor, Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, US Ambassador to the UN, and Secretary of Energy. The epitome of being "unqualified" for sure. And did I mention the investigation in question was dropped?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

6. White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers resigned after posing for photos at a White House dinner that a couple crashed through security to attend. 



Resigned. Nor a "nominee" that requires Senate confirmation. The White House Social Secretary? Really?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 



7. Jonathan Z. Cannon, nominated to serve as deputy director at the Environmental Protection Administration, withdrew over questions about a defunct non-profit, America’s Clean Water Foundation, where he served as a board member. In 2007, EPA auditors accused the non-profit of mismanaging $25 million in taxpayer funding.

Withdrew. Not filibustered.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 



8. Jide Zeitlin, Obama’s nominee to serve as U.S ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform withdrew his name while being accused of identify fraud and improper business practices. 



Withdrew. Not filibustered.

"In 2006, Zeitlin was sued over allegations that he defamed a rival firm, American Tower Corp., and impersonated its chief executive, James D. Taiclet Jr., in cyberspace, according to a complaint in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. American Tower voluntarily withdrew its suit in early 2008 without any financial settlement or public admission of fault by Zeitlin, according to a company statement.

The complaint alleged that Zeitlin provided a magazine reporter with negative information about American Tower and then forwarded the article to two of the company's major institutional investors, Thomas D. Stern of Chieftain Capital Management and Nick Advani of Goldman Sachs. It said Zeitlin used an Internet tool that allowed him to falsely identify Taiclet as the e-mail sender."

Pick for U.N. job faced legal and business woes - Washington Post

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

9. Erroll Southers, Obama’s nominee to serve as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew after refusing to answer questions about collective bargaining and false testimony he presented to Congress.

Withdrew. Not filibustered. The Senate never took up the nomination because former Sen. Jim Demint put a hold on it because he opposed unionization of TSA employees and he thought the nominee "might" support it. Transportation Security and Counterterrorism expert. Former assistant chief for Office of Homeland Security and Intelligence for the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department, FBI Special Agent, Deputy Director of Homeland Security of California. Again, apparently "unqualified" in your estimation.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 



10. Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding, Obama’s second nominee to service as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew his name after it was discovered he received “service disabled veteran” status for sleep apnea.

Withdrew. Not filibustered. Former Army intelligence offer. Again, apparently "unqualified" in your estimation.

1. Not a single one of the examples you cite had anything to do with the filibuster. Which IIRC is the topic of this thread.

2. All of these individuals were clearly qualified.

3. Yet you have nothing to say about the judge I mentioned that was clearly filibustered by the Senate GOP.

Imagine that.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Too racist.

My point was that they wouldn't filibuster IF Obama had nominated someone acceptable.
I showed his track record on nominations.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Too racist.

So now Judge Wilkins is "too racist"?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

My point was that they wouldn't filibuster IF Obama had nominated someone acceptable.

And again. What is "unacceptable" about a Harvard educated judge with the HIGHEST rating from the ABA?

OAW

[subego]

I'd say the idea is the same answer as what's wrong with a well-liked and respected former Governor of New Mexico who planned to run for president.

That answer being "shit we didn't know going into the confirmation process".

[subego]

To put it another way, there's been an inordinate amount of "did I say nominate this guy? I actually meant nominate that guy."

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So now Judge Wilkins is "too racist"?



And again. What is "unacceptable" about a Harvard educated judge with the HIGHEST rating from the ABA?

OAW

And yet you haven't looked into his record (not his CD's) and his attitudes etc. Perhaps YOU are too liberal, with the issues, and problems of seeing things objectively, so you don't get it. We don't need those who look to non-US law, or who are biased. We NEED judges who follow the law, something liberals haven't been doing. Do you connect to reality, or just your opinion of what reality is?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And yet you haven't looked into his record (not his CD's) and his attitudes etc. Perhaps YOU are too liberal, with the issues, and problems of seeing things objectively, so you don't get it. We don't need those who look to non-US law, or who are biased. We NEED judges who follow the law, something liberals haven't been doing. Do you connect to reality, or just your opinion of what reality is?

You continue to make assertions without even a half-assed attempt to substantiate what you say. It's not my job to dig around looking for something that you might find objectionable about this individual. I have neither the time nor the inclination to play this game with you. When you can manage to provide evidence to support this notion that he is "unqualified" then this discussion might be somewhat worthwhile. Until then ....

OAW

[climber]

I think most independents and those in the political middle would agree that it is rarely a good idea for anything to proceed through congress on a purely partisan basis. This precedent only encourages a shift to appointments on a more partisan basis. After all, why bother finding a moderate to appease the opposition when you can pretty much do whatever you want. And now that the pandoras box has been opened it's only a matter of time before we start seeing this extended to the Supreme court and legislation.

Personally I am afraid of either side cramming the Supreme Court with highly partisan appointments.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Recent track record of his various nominations

1. Obama’s nominee to chair the National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman, withdrew over questions about payments from the Saudi Arabian government, business ties to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., and negative statements he made about U.S. support for Israel. After he resigned he issued a combative public statement blaming the “Israel lobby” for “character assassination.” 



2. White House “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones resigned after he it was discovered he signed a statement in support of a 9/11 “Truther” group. 



3. Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) withdrew his nomination to become Health and Human Services Secretary after it was discovered he failed to properly pay his taxes. 



4. Nancy Killefer, Obama’s nominee to serve as the government’s chief performance officer, withdrew due to tax problems.



5. Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) withdrew his nomination to become Commerce Secretary because of an ongoing investigation into whether he doled out government contracts in exchange for campaign money. 



6. White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers resigned after posing for photos at a White House dinner that a couple crashed through security to attend.



7. Jonathan Z. Cannon, nominated to serve as deputy director at the Environmental Protection Administration, withdrew over questions about a defunct non-profit, America’s Clean Water Foundation, where he served as a board member. In 2007, EPA auditors accused the non-profit of mismanaging $25 million in taxpayer funding.



8. Jide Zeitlin, Obama’s nominee to serve as U.S ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform withdrew his name while being accused of identify fraud and improper business practices. 



9. Erroll Southers, Obama’s nominee to serve as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew after refusing to answer questions about collective bargaining and false testimony he presented to Congress.



10. Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding, Obama’s second nominee to service as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew his name after it was discovered he received “service disabled veteran” status for sleep apnea.

As of July 30, 2012, six of the filibusters have been brought to a cloture vote. Three cloture votes were successful in breaking the filibusters, while the cloture votes on the nominations of Goodwin Liu, Caitlin Halligan and Robert E. Bacharach failed. Many nominations expired with the adjournment of the 111th Congress, but all were renominated in the 112th Congress with the exception of Robert Chatigny. NPR commented on the pattern of delay for certain nominees in an August 4, 2011 article, stating that "Some of the longest waiting nominees, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Charles Bernard Day of Maryland and Edward Dumont of Washington happen to be black or openly gay".[4] The nominations of Day and DuMont were eventually withdrawn. Senator Grassley commented more nominees could have been confirmed had President Obama respected recess appointment precedent by not making recess appointments while the Senate is in session.[5] Although President Obama has never used a recess appointment to appoint a nominee to the federal bench, he had appointed some executive agency officials in January 2012.

As a response to the continuing blocking of several of President Obama's nominees, Sen. Harry Reid on November 21, 2013 invoked the so-called Nuclear option and changed the Senate rules, meaning a simple majority vote will suffice for all nominees except for the Supreme Court

Just think, if Reid had done this two years ago we'd have all these people ushering in Hope and Change. "I hope the American public doesn't find out about who we really are and change their minds :/

It would have been more fair if these people were appointed unopposed.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You continue to make assertions without even a half-assed attempt to substantiate what you say. It's not my job to dig around looking for something that you might find objectionable about this individual. I have neither the time nor the inclination to play this game with you. When you can manage to provide evidence to support this notion that he is "unqualified" then this discussion might be somewhat worthwhile. Until then ....

OAW

You're right. Knowing who our elected officials are putting into unelected positions requires way too much effort. We should just confirm everyone who the executive chooses to carry out their agenda.

You have to confirm them to find out who they are! (Where did we hear this before and how's that going?)

I think you have it backwards, OAW. The onus is supposed to be on the executive to prove that their appointment is qualified, not the oppositions job to disqualify them. Of course, this hurts Our Dear Leader's ability to put his friends and cronies in those positions unopposed and regardless of their qualifications so it's patently unfair.

All this change has done is managed to suppress the voice of the minority in the Senate and easily get around those pesky checks and balances that keep our government from realizing it's true potential as the ultimate authority in every aspect of our lives.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

No. Simple fairness doesn't need to be manipulated or abused. And it certainly need not be feared. A simple fact that seems to have eluded the GOP since President Obama was elected.

Buffalo bagels! Marking this thread for future reference.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

While I think filibusters have been misused to prevent even voting on whether to discuss appointments, I don't think limiting the filibuster per se is a great idea. This particularly limited change may at least point out that the Republicans have been using filibusters to avoid looking bad to their constituents by voting down appointees to courts that desperately need judges just because they were appointed by a president they don't like. In many cases, the Republicans have managed to stop the confirmation of very popular, bipartisan-supported judges, but by using filibuster, they haven't "voted against" a nomination, so they feel they haven't made themselves look bad. All this does is increase backlogs in courts that already have horrible backlogs (and may be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of a speedy trial - that applies at all levels, including appellate courts).

Newton's Third Law. When you blame all social ills, all budgetary woes, and all of your own failures on others or on a single political party without shame, from the highest podium on the globe, it's likely going to strain your negotiations with them. On all things.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I'd like the people we elect and pay all that money to do what we supposedly sent them to Washington to do, instead of looking like a poorly disciplined middle school at lunch time.

You're asking for leadership. That's what we're missing here. If you file cloture against a filibuster that hasn't happened, that cloture indicates a filibuster. If you're wondering why filibusters have increased exponentially, look no further than to the man filing cloture against filibusters that hadn't happened in order to suppress even the prospect of debate. Otherwise, you'd have to conclude the number of appointments actually passed through Congress (never reported) are indicative of Republicans' love and admiration of this President.

[ghporter]

ebuddy nails it. Leadership among those we elect, in both the Executive and Legislative branches, is lacking. This rules change shows a little leadership on the part of Senate Democrats, but of late the Republicans, particularly those in the House but in the Senate too, have been following the extremes without attending to what they are supposed to be doing: "the business of the American people."

By simply obstructing the completion of filling a whole lot of judgeships, the Republicans in the Senate apparently figured they were looking like they were doing something. They were not. They were preventing important things from being done, while avoiding going on record for or against each nominee. That's not leadership, that's hiding behind a procedure to keep from looking as juvenile as you might (which is how a lot of up/down votes on these court appointees will look).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

ebuddy nails it. Leadership among those we elect, in both the Executive and Legislative branches, is lacking. This rules change shows a little leadership on the part of Senate Democrats, but of late the Republicans, particularly those in the House but in the Senate too, have been following the extremes without attending to what they are supposed to be doing: "the business of the American people."

By simply obstructing the completion of filling a whole lot of judgeships, the Republicans in the Senate apparently figured they were looking like they were doing something. They were not. They were preventing important things from being done, while avoiding going on record for or against each nominee. That's not leadership, that's hiding behind a procedure to keep from looking as juvenile as you might (which is how a lot of up/down votes on these court appointees will look).

I appreciate the back-handed use of my point to make yours, but...

There were 211 appointees approved by the Senate, there are only 53 pending. Yes, there are many more vacancies, but Obama does not yet have appointees to fill them. Again, 211 approved -- 53 pending. This doesn't really make the paranoid case for reforming the filibuster. Again - Newton's Third Law. You cannot bully and berate a bloc of people from the highest office in the land and reasonably expect that bloc to help you craft your legacy. It just doesn't work that way. You'll no doubt recall this principled action of Senate Democratic leadership in an entirely different light when Republicans are at the helm.

It was very simply a power grab by Democrats and frankly I'm surprised at how duped the American public has become on this. Not to mention the disconnected logic in maintaining this argument; if denials illustrate obstruction and hatred for the President, why wouldn't the vastly more numerous approvals not illustrate fairness, cooperation, and love for this President? The answer is neither. It's a deliberative body doing what it does which proved too inconvenient for ideologically zealous Democrats.

[Shaddim]

Well said.