Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The bodies on the fainting couches are stacked three deep over at the Washington Post this morning. [View all]markpkessinger
(8,908 posts)46. My comment on Millbank's column
Here is the text of a comment I posted in response to Millbank's column in the Post:
Spare us the pearl clutching, Mr. Millbank.
To defend the filibuster as the GOP has been using it requires one to believe that the framers of the Constitution intended to permit a procedural rule of one legislative chamber, employed by a minority faction within that chamber to prevent the full body of the Senate from exercising its Constitutional role of advise and consent with respect to executive branch nominations, and thereby also effectively giving a minority faction in one chamber of the legislature the ability prevent a president from exercising his or her Constitutionally-appointed power of appointment. That is so utterly illogical as to be absurd. If it were a matter of the minority having principled objections to the nominees in quewstion, then your argument might hold water. But the fact is Republicans have been abusing the filibuster since this President took office, using it not merely in cases where they have a principled objection to a particular nominee, but to actually deny a sitting President the power of appointments provided to his office by the Constitution. They even used it to try to impede the functioning of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, by refusing to permit a vote on ANY nominee at all to head that agency. The GOP's employment of the filibuster has been an egregious abuse of the rule.
I remind you that the Constitution does not contemplate the existence of political parties, so any suggestion that there is, or should be, any requirement whatsoever to "win votes" from the minority party is sheer nonsense. The "two centuries of custom" to which you refer was already irrpeparably broken, and the constant use of it by the GOP for specious reasons had transformed it into something that bore little resemblance to the filibuster as understood 200 years ago.
To defend the filibuster as the GOP has been using it requires one to believe that the framers of the Constitution intended to permit a procedural rule of one legislative chamber, employed by a minority faction within that chamber to prevent the full body of the Senate from exercising its Constitutional role of advise and consent with respect to executive branch nominations, and thereby also effectively giving a minority faction in one chamber of the legislature the ability prevent a president from exercising his or her Constitutionally-appointed power of appointment. That is so utterly illogical as to be absurd. If it were a matter of the minority having principled objections to the nominees in quewstion, then your argument might hold water. But the fact is Republicans have been abusing the filibuster since this President took office, using it not merely in cases where they have a principled objection to a particular nominee, but to actually deny a sitting President the power of appointments provided to his office by the Constitution. They even used it to try to impede the functioning of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, by refusing to permit a vote on ANY nominee at all to head that agency. The GOP's employment of the filibuster has been an egregious abuse of the rule.
I remind you that the Constitution does not contemplate the existence of political parties, so any suggestion that there is, or should be, any requirement whatsoever to "win votes" from the minority party is sheer nonsense. The "two centuries of custom" to which you refer was already irrpeparably broken, and the constant use of it by the GOP for specious reasons had transformed it into something that bore little resemblance to the filibuster as understood 200 years ago.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The bodies on the fainting couches are stacked three deep over at the Washington Post this morning. [View all]
WilliamPitt
Nov 2013
OP
If the Rethugs gain the majority, they can simply change the rule back right?
riderinthestorm
Nov 2013
#21
They probably would have done the same thing as soon as they got the majority. No honor
ErikJ
Nov 2013
#31
Milbank quit going on MSNBC when Olbermann was there because he said "it was just an echo chamber".
Major Hogwash
Nov 2013
#45
If it looks like the GOP will take the Senate then Reid should just reverse his latest rule on this.
kelliekat44
Nov 2013
#50