REVIVING THE DEBATE OVER HARRY REID’S “NUCLEAR OPTION …”
By ROBERT ROMANO || Twenty-four new federal judges by Christmas? That’s what outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants in the lame duck session of Congress.
Faced with an incoming Republican majority, Reid and Barack Obama want to stack the judiciary in yet another egregious power grab. Reid also wants to get a budget done, get a deal on tax extenders, and another twenty-six or so executive branch nominees.
Adding insult to injury, these appointments will once again be made in violation of Senate rules, which state it takes sixty votes to close debate on any matter. These nominations will be confirmed with simple majorities – even though Senate rules were never technically modified, which would have taken a two-thirds vote.
As a result, Republicans will be unable to block them.
But Reid won’t be in the majority anymore, so what does he care?
Chalk it up to one more reason why the congressional session should begin immediately following an election.
After all, why should members of Congress, many of whom lost reelection or are retiring, get to make decisions without being accountable to the people they purport to represent?
Reid’s court-packing scheme also poses a dilemma for Senate Republicans in the upcoming session. Namely, should they go back to the old rules – the ones that are still on the books – requiring 60 votes to close off debate.
In a joint letter from 26 free market and limited government leaders, including Americans for Limited Government President Nathan Mehrens, the answer is no.
(To continue reading this piece, press the “Read More …” icon below).
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. This piece (reprinted with permission) originally appeared on NetRightDaily.com.
25 comments
Translation: “Boo hoo, we can’t cross our arms, stamp our feet, and scream like children to stop appointments of judges whenever we aren’t in power.” And we aren’t even talking about SCOTUS judges here. We aren’t talking about “Oh shit, that one particular judge is really bad and we don’t want them in.” We’re talking full-blown obstruction of 100% of the appointments in complete spite of the opposing party that the American people voted into power.
And Republicans are whining because Harry Reid found a way to get around their sabotage, and it’s perfectly legal.
Speaking of legal matters, how’s that Republican lawsuit going? Oh, wait, it’s not “going” at all, is it?
Translation: “Kind of hard to Bork em now.”
“…And Republicans are whining because Harry Reid found a way to get around their sabotage, and it’s perfectly legal….
I hope Ol’Harry remembers that “it’s perfectly legal” in January…
What goes around comes around “and it’s perfectly legal”.
I hope you mean Democrats will block all Republican judges once a Republican wins the White House (if that ever happens again).
Will Romano still be opposed in January, though?
Colonel, give us a short history lesson on the “nuclear option” beginning with Sen. leader Bill Frist in 2005.
The “nuclear option” much like “MAD” is better talked about and threatened rather than actually exercised – the ramifications of unchecked Senatorial power are very scary.
The nuclear option doesn’t apply to legislation. If it did, we would have broken up big banks, had better healthcare reform, and started tackling climate change by now.
And our “senior senator ” will rubber stamp them because “elections have consequences”. If Republicans have any balls left they will find a way to stonewall these appointments till the end of the session. A tall order for short pols.
Yes indeed. We can survive Obamacare and Obama’s other ‘executive orders’ INCLUDING amnesty. There are ways to to dismantle Obamacare and defund any immigration bill-this countries biggest threat are these judicial appointments which destroy the moral and cultural foundations of this country.
The Obama administration appoints judges that promote a hatred of Christianity and perverted, non-traditional marriage. Their rulings tear apart the vert fabric that holds our communities and schools together.
And that would be???? What????? Fabric??? We’re arguing over cotton versus nylon???? What?????
“Two guys walk into a church, one says “Will You Marry Me?” the other says, “Get your partner, I’ll get my collar and perform the ceremony.”
Rocky i ‘upvoted’ ya .still don’t know what the fuck you said.
“judges that promote a hatred of Christianity”
What a loon.
“After all, why should members of Congress, many of whom lost reelection or are retiring, get to make decisions without being accountable to the people they purport to represent?”
Probably because the Amendment XX to the Constitution says so.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.
Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Actually, it’s better that it used to be when the lame duck Congressional term extended to March
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution moved the beginning and ending of the terms of the President and Vice President from March 4 to January 20, and of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3. It also has provisions that determine what is to be done when there is no President-elect. The Twentieth Amendment was ratified on January 23, 1933.[1]
Section 1 of the amendment reduced the amount of time between Election Day and the beginning of Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms.[2] Originally, the terms of the President, the Vice President and the incoming Congress began on March 4, four months after the elections were held. While this lapse was a practical necessity at the end of the 18th century, when any newly elected official might require several months to put his affairs in order and then undertake an arduous journey from his home to the national capital, it eventually had the effect of impeding the functioning of government in the modern age.
If Mr. Romano wants to change the start date of a Congressional session, all he has to do is Amend the Constitution.
But the reason for the delay was to allow farmers and etc to get to the polls, the ballots to be collected and counted blah, blah, blah – the Constitution is a “living document”, why don’t we just up date it blah, blah, blah….
OK. Just start a Constitutional Convention.
“Chalk it up to one more reason why the congressional session should begin immediately following an election.”
Which election is Mr. Romano referring to, the November general election or the December runoff? And if there are recounts of runoff election votes or the vote is contested, then what?
The only president who has granted amnesty is Ronald Reagan. Establishment Republicans love cheap laborers and more customers.
GOP view on the pending executive order on amnesty – “Please don’t do that until we can do it first.” You rubes have no idea, the establishment is preparing an amnesty bill as we speak. It’s their number one priority. Priority two – pass a repeal of the medical device tax, call it an Obamacare victory, and leave ACA in place. They sold you “patriots” out long before you even voted for them – idiots.
Democrats abusing power? What’s news worthy about this? If Democrats obeyed the law and respected the Constitution…now that would be NEWS!
Harry Reid is a dangerous man.
Dumbass, every lame duck was elected to serve out his/her term.
Only since Obama was elected have we had this craziness that that is NOT the case.
Reid and the democrats are anti America and it shows in everything they do.
Nobody can justify the behavior of the Republicans. You can’t block appointees just out of spite until you win back the White House. The way the Republicans are going, that might be 40 years from now, if ever. It’ll be so great when we’re trying to lock up criminals in 2050 and there’s one senile 100-year-old judge left to hear every case in the country.