Harry and the Nuclear Option

[dan_bgblue]

No not Truman, Reid

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued an ultimatum to Republicans on Monday to confirm at least seven presidential appointees or face a controversial rule change that could drain their power.

Reid made the demand during a speech Monday morning to the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, ahead of a possible showdown vote on Tuesday.

At issue is the Senate's own rulebook, which to lawmakers is a very serious topic. Reid is threatening to flout the normal process in order to change the rules so that key presidential nominees can be confirmed with just 51 votes -- as opposed to 60. In short, the move would curb the minority party's ability to filibuster nominees.

Despite virulent protests by Republicans, Reid called the move "a minor change, no big deal."

Why doesn't he just call in the troops and have the miscreants removed from Senate chambers?

Linkage (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/15/reid-issues-ultimatum-to-republicans-demands-approval-obama-nominees/)

[CitizenBBN]

A "minor change" that allows the party in power to wipe the Senate's confirmation power off the map.

"The power of an extreme minority" threatens the Senate's integrity, and forces him to act, Reid said Monday.

Yeah, and by "minority" we mean 40% of the duly elected representatives of the American People. This raises "minority" to 49%. Don't have a simple majority? Too bad, get in line and try to keep those shoes more polished Comrade.

The Founders feared nothing more in politics than tyranny of the majority. They were right, and now Reid wants that power to be wielded by 51%, not by 60%, b/c it's just too much trouble to nominate people to high government positions that we can basically agree on.

FWIW it's the "extreme" views of this President and his willingness to subvert the Constitution and any who disagree with him that have these appointments stopped dead. Le'ts examine the real chain of events that have led to this showdown:

1) President nominates some people to sit on NLRB, a board that has been STRONGLY pro labor since Obama took office and far more active than in the past.

2) The GOP Senate refuses to confirm them.

3) Obama waits till Senate is out of session and puts them in office by executive order, the "recess appointment" to get them in office and bypass the Senate's confirmation power.

4) the GOP sues, arguing this use of the recess appointment is unconstitutional.

5) The DC Circuit rules against the White House, saying he overreached his power and violated the Constitutional balance of powers. Those board members are ruled to be invalid appointments, calling into question a large number of NLRB actions that are seen by most observers as the most pro-labor in a very long time, and in some cases extreme.

6) Subsequently in a different case the 3rd Circuit ALSO rules against the White House. Again those pro union decisions are invalidated.

7) The White House appeals to SCOTUS, who has agreed this last week to hear the case and look at the recess appointment power

8) Reid makes this move to FORCE the appointment of the NLRB members who were not confirmed, were put in power through slick timing by Obama, and who the courts have held were invalid appointments.

Why such a huge deal? B/c all those pro union decisions they got done during that time are invalid if these people aren't in the end confirmed as members. You remember the unions, those huge donors and voter blocks for Obama and Reid.

Here's the thing: SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, so the proper move is to do nothing till SCOTUS rules on these members, but since it's likely SCOTUS will rule against Obama, the third court to do so in this case, if they let it get to that and lose then these decisions are toast UNLESS they can get Senate confirmation. Reid is moving now so this isn't seen as overriding SCOTUS, the Obama version of FDR's court packing fiasco where Obama/Reid are seen as trying to get around a SCOTUS ruling.



This folks is the difference between a politician and a statesman. A Statesman plays politics, tries to get votes, does all that stuff, but he does NOT fundamentally or institutionally damage the nation for his short term gain. Harry Reid is so far from Statesman it's not funny and so is any Majority Leader who will so embrace tyranny of the majority to placate their voting block and money lenders.

I only hope this comes back to haunt those who do this, and some wrongs be righted, then this rule put pack in place. Yes, in that order.

[Doc]

This is the same Harry Reid that repeatedly won't bring bills to the floor because they are GOP generated, right?

[jazyd]

He looks very much like the guy in your picture

Does Reed have the vote from his party? If so all of them need to be ousted


This is the same Harry Reid that repeatedly won't bring bills to the floor because they are GOP generated, right?

[KeithKSR]

This is the same Harry Reid that repeatedly won't bring bills to the floor because they are GOP generated, right?

Same old Harry Reid.

What Reid fails to consider is that first of all he may not have the votes to make the rule change, as all Dems are not in favor of the change. Second, come the 2014 midterm elections it is quite possible he will be the minority leader.

The framers and those that came after feared corruption, and did not intend for laws to be passed too easily in order to block corruption. The myriad of agencies that fall under the executive branch create too many regulations with the power of law at present, and I do not think that is keeping with the intent of the Constitution.

[jazyd]

Payback could be hell

[dan_bgblue]

Compromise? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/16/senate-heads-for-showdown-as-reid-demands-gop-approve-nominees/)

[CitizenBBN]

Yep, seems they've worked something out. Good news for the nation b/c that rule change would be a bad thing.