On the Brink of Going Nuclear
Going against my "better judgment" regarding the basement, I decided to set up camp down there yesterday morning. At the same time I watched part of the opening statements for the whole hyped up Judge-Filibuster conflict in the Senate by the party leaders. But I have no firm position on the matter, I see equal validity in both sides of the argument(s) presented as the issue on the surface.
I'd call it a "debate" but it's just a bunch of monologues by various Senators on either side of the issue, whose positions are conveniently based on party affiliation when it comes to who's for "X" and who's against "X". Not to mention Senators don't necessarily need to be present except for when it's time for their breif speach or party policy advertisement or for a floor vote and whatnot, so they need not listen to nor bother considering points in others' arguments presented in the "debate".
Below the surface it's also about party power, about appearances to the electorate; about personal objectives of a given Senator and his/her political party. Which also means hypocricy is coming onto the scene by both sides, such as the overt role reversal from the Clinton years when it was the Republican minority keeping Democratic nominees from getting the now sacred up or down vote that Democrats wished for since they had the majority. Obviously that's indicative of how positions on methods such as filibusters or simple majority votes are relative to whether a party is in the minority or majority in a given Congress.
Reiterating my neutrality, I can't help but wonder though how far a potential ban on filibusters could or would go if the conveniently codenamed "Nuclear Option" is implimented. Theoretically it could progress from a ban on filibusters of just judicial nominees to include cabinet level nominees and perhaps even legislation if the majority party really desired to go to such lengths to get around having to deal with the minority.
If they do just the ban on judicial nominees at the least, however, they need to consider just in case they lose the majority in the next congressional elections to reinstate the filibuster in one of the last days of the 109th Congress for them to be able to use in the 110th Congress. Otherwise they could be screwing themselves.
Granted, in that hypothetical circumstace the new majority could just follow the former majority party's example as justification for the reinstitution of the ban on filibusters. Leaving the former-majority perhaps to be damned either way.
I'd call it a "debate" but it's just a bunch of monologues by various Senators on either side of the issue, whose positions are conveniently based on party affiliation when it comes to who's for "X" and who's against "X". Not to mention Senators don't necessarily need to be present except for when it's time for their breif speach or party policy advertisement or for a floor vote and whatnot, so they need not listen to nor bother considering points in others' arguments presented in the "debate".
Below the surface it's also about party power, about appearances to the electorate; about personal objectives of a given Senator and his/her political party. Which also means hypocricy is coming onto the scene by both sides, such as the overt role reversal from the Clinton years when it was the Republican minority keeping Democratic nominees from getting the now sacred up or down vote that Democrats wished for since they had the majority. Obviously that's indicative of how positions on methods such as filibusters or simple majority votes are relative to whether a party is in the minority or majority in a given Congress.
Reiterating my neutrality, I can't help but wonder though how far a potential ban on filibusters could or would go if the conveniently codenamed "Nuclear Option" is implimented. Theoretically it could progress from a ban on filibusters of just judicial nominees to include cabinet level nominees and perhaps even legislation if the majority party really desired to go to such lengths to get around having to deal with the minority.
If they do just the ban on judicial nominees at the least, however, they need to consider just in case they lose the majority in the next congressional elections to reinstate the filibuster in one of the last days of the 109th Congress for them to be able to use in the 110th Congress. Otherwise they could be screwing themselves.
Granted, in that hypothetical circumstace the new majority could just follow the former majority party's example as justification for the reinstitution of the ban on filibusters. Leaving the former-majority perhaps to be damned either way.
posted by Chris at 7:51:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home