BarkellWH -> RE: It’s hotter than (Aug. 13 2021 13:41:51)
|
My posts on this issue demonstrate that I don't disagree with many of your arguments regarding McConnell's actions as Senate Majority Leader. He clearly did not grant Garland a hearing (which I did not associate with a filibuster, as it wasn't in play), and your comments on nominees Ginsberg, Scalia, O'Connor et al, while uncontroversial and with which I largely agree, are nevertheless irrelevant to my basic point. I will restate my thesis by repeating a couple of my comments above which are the nub of the issue I have raised.. What Harry Reid either ignored or didn't care about when he abolished the filibuster for sub-SCOTUS Judicial nominees was the inevitable political truism that "what goes around, comes around." Sure enough, in 2017, with Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader, the Senate abolished the remaining supermajority of 60 required to confirm Supreme Court nominees to a simple majority of 51. Having initiated the "nuclear option" in 2013, the Democrats were hardly in a position of moral or ethical superiority to condemn the Republicans' action when they were in a similar position. One can disagree with the way McConnell ran the Senate as Majority Leader, whether the issue was his refusal to grant Merrick Garland a hearing or his seating of Federalist Society judges, but that is irrelevant when considering Reid's "nuclear option" abolishing the filibuster in order to seat judges below the SCOTUS level and McConnell's response in kind in abolishing the filibuster in order to seat SCOTUS nominees. It all depends on whose ox is being gored. Reid implemented the "nuclear option" because if he hadn't, Obama's nominees would never have been confirmed by the Senate. McConnell did the same thing because if he hadn't, Trump's nominees would never have been confirmed by the Senate. This is not a question of whose nominees one supports or not. It's a question of both parties using the Senate rules to create conditions favorable to each. The Democrats cannot pull the "nuclear option" when they have the power to do so in their own interest, as Harry Reid did, and then complain that it's "unfair" for the Republicans to do so when they have the power to do so in their own interest. Maybe Reid should have thought about that before doing it. There were even Democrats who warned him that when the Republicans regained the Senate at some point, they could do the very same thing, but Reid was hard-headed and wouldn't listen. So he chose short-term gain over long term consequences. Again, my argument is solely concerned with the Republicans (McConnell) responding in kind to the Democrats (Reid) in the matter of abolishing the supermajority required for the confirmation of judicial nominees. It has nothing to do with whether one likes or dislikes McConnell or Reid, and it certainly has nothing to do with whether or not one likes or dislikes the judicial nominees facing confirmation. By the way, I fully support amending the rules regarding the filibuster to require actually standing before the Senate chamber and talking a la Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." If something is worth filibustering, it's worth taking the time and effort to oppose it, both physically and mentally. Bill
|
|
|
|