The Gang of 14 Revisited
I'm not an expert in Senate parliamentary procedure. But when I read news stories like the one, today, about the GOP's use of "parliamentary procedure" to "block debate" about Iraq, I read: The GOP lawmakers filibustered this turkey - just like the Democrats did for Bush's judicial appointments.
But the Republicans tried to change the rules in 2005 and were blocked by the 'gang of 14' - the much-vilified centrists from both parties who thought that what's good for the goose is good for the gander - and so it's better not to change the rules. And, if you're playing along at home, the geese had control of Capitol Hill until last Fall, at which point the ganders were swept honking into office.
I'm waiting for my friend NBS to post, in outrage, over this brazen and irresponsible use of the filibuster on the part of the GOP to block debate on Iraq. (In a filibuster someone keeps talking, right?)
posted by Superfly @ 10:20 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Apples and oranges. It was not (before the last Congress) the custom of the minority to filibuster judicial appointments, whereas it has always been the custom to filibuster other legislation.
Cheers,
NBS
Custom or not - and I heard this suggested on talk radio (Laura Ingraham) but I'm still not clear: A filibuster excerised in the name of preventing a nonbinding resolution from being discussed is a noble act - but if done to prevent a vote on judicial appointments, it's a terrible abuse of power for which it's worth re-writing the rules of the Senate?
I guess it won't be apples to apples if/until Hillary tries to nominate one of her old pals from Yale Law - at which point I will withdraw my suggestion of sheer partisan expediency if GOP lawmakers merely hold hearings and schedule a vote.
(There are plenty of solid reasons not to like McCain - this just seems like a weak one to me.)
Post a Comment
<< Home