I've listened to Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican senator who's not John McCain. He has never struck me as effectively persuasive and, at times, appears a bit dullard-like. I'm sure it's just my misconceptions…whatever….but Jon Kyl is now issuing warnings to President-elect Barack Obama about Supreme Court nominees.
Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.
The Senate breakdown stands at 57 to 40 in favor of the Democrats with races in Minnesota, Alaska and Georgia still to be decided. U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., also needs to decide which party to caucus with. Republicans will need 41 votes to filibuster Obama nominees and Democratic legislation. The Arizona senator acknowledged that could be a challenge. Link
I really don't care what Kyl says, however, the last sentence above, I think, is telling. Jon Kyl thinks that filibusters in the Senate from the Republicans' weakened position "could be a challenge." This is good news for voters who would like to see legislation passed in the Senate to change America. The state of Maine has two very moderate Republican senators in Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. They have often voted with the Democrats in the past and will very likely do so in the next Congress. Other Republican senators up for re-election in 2010, like George Voinovich of Ohio for example, will be difficult to harness into some lock-step Republican army of obstruction. While it is true that there are a handful of weaklings in the Democratic Senatorial caucus, Kyl's admission that filibustering "could be a challenge", presumably, takes that fact into consideration.
As far as this coming Congress is concerned, filibustering basically means that majority Democrats in the Senate need 60 votes to pass a cloture vote on a bill that will then be debated and eventually voted upon by the entire Senate.
For those anxious for change to come to America…..in the House, Democrats will be able to do pretty much whatever they want to do. It has always been the Senate where GOP obstructionists have found success in stopping legislation that Americans actually were in favor of.
Perhaps now, with such a big win on Tuesday for the Democrats, even the monkey wrench throwing tactic of defensive obstruction in the form of a GOP filibuster will be a "challenge".
But….look at what Jon Kyl had to say about, you know, filibustering Supreme Court nominees while George W. Bush was president….when Democrats were in the minority….
"This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." Link
Now do you see why I find Jon Kyl less that credible? He's a changeling. See….in 2005, when Kyl's GOP senators held a thin majority status, a filibuster of Bush Supreme Court nominees by the minority Democrats was simply unacceptable and wrong. Now that Kyl and his GOP fellows in the Senate find themselves in minority status with Democratic President Barack Obama in the position to do the Supreme Court vacancy nominating thing (should a vacancy occur)….Kyl says that not only is filibustering appropriate, but that he will be the one leading it.
Elections have consequences. Elections can expose hypocritical, double dealing, fork tongued, convictionless Senators for who they really are.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
You are right. Elections do have consequecnes. In 2005, we had 55 Republican Senators, not much different than you will have now. But that didnt matter to Democrats.
So what…are Republicans just supposed to sit back and take it and let the Democrats get whatever nominee they want? In theory, yes they should. But how can you sit there and say the Republicans have no right to block nominees? Why should show the Senate Democrats and the incoming president any deference? They gave Bush none. For the first time in history, a simple majority vote was no longer enough to confirm a nominee. You needed 60 due to Democrat obstruction. This had never happened before. Countless nominees had 55, 56, even 57 votes for confirmation, but jerks like Leahy, Schumer, et al wouldnt let them get an up or down vote. It was unacceptable.
My question is why should we just sit back and let you do whatever you want now? You are the one who sounds like a hypocrite.
Oh, also thanks you gave me an idea for something to write about
Maybe we should go to an all or nothing system with just two legislators. So if a dem is elected president, congress will consist of one dem senator and one dem representative.
Bush received no deference because he deserved none.In a word he was incompetent.
Ben: Appreciate the time you took here. The point of my post was hypocrisy. Kyl used to be against filibusters in the Supremes nomination process…now he's for them.
That demonstrates a lack of integrity, at least to me.
When a president receives a mandate from the people, as Obama clearly has, the opposition party should seek common ground where it can be found. The people do not want the minority to monkey wrench the process…which is what I'm afraid Boehner and Boys will seek to do.
The one thing I'm positive about……Americans did not elect Obama and the Democrats by such wide margins in order for the Republicans to block and obstruct change as outlined during the campaign.
If the GOP'ers attempt to wreck the process, whcih I fully expect them to do, they will fall even further into obscurity. It's a perfect storm this time caused by the total malfeasance of Republicans the last 8 years.
I think Ben understood your point and made his own–your call for an end to fillibusters at this point is hypocrisy, Reverend. It demonstrates a lack of integrity.
Forty-some percent of Americans didn't vote for Obama or for Dem legislators. Their representatives should do everything they can to make sure that perspective is taken into account.
Yes, I understood exactly what you were saying: The Republicans have no leg to stand on while the Democrats behavior was acceptable previously.
Fighting judicial nominations tooth-and-nail for ideological reasons was a lesson Republicans learned the hard way from the Democrats. You have none to blame but your own party on this score, Rev.
So, you guys agree then……40.1% of the population should be able to stop 59.9% of the country from getting what they want? Right?
W. got what he wanted with Roberts and Alito. The Dems didn't stop those two stone-age benchers.
I know I'm dealing here with GOP voters….but who was it that set the record for number of filibusters in the last Congress?
"So, you guys agree then……40.1% of the population should be able to stop 59.9% of the country from getting what they want? Right?"
Is 40.1% your cutoff for making it unreasonable? Was 45.0% okay back when you guys were blocking judges and blocked us from getting what we wanted when we had 55 seats?
You are the one calling us hypocrites for talking up blocking possible judges, when your party has gone out of their way to do it the last 8 years. Its just another example of "what is good for me is not good for thee."
All these years Democrats have acted like asses on judiciary matters. Now I think they should get whats coming to them. If that is offensive to you, okay. So be it. I dont give a damn what other Democrats or Republicans think. I am still pissed off at the way our nominees were treated and I want payback.
I respect your honesty.
When you look at who the Democrats filibustered, it was only a handful of extremely far right conservative jurists who were blocked. Bush got his way most of the time. In fact, the only lasting legacy Bush will have is in the courts.
The hypocrisy is not in the blocking of judges. The hypocrisy is in criticizing the Dems for filibustering and then filibustering yourself….which is what Kyl said he plans to do.
I know it's always a battle, but this ain't like football. In football, when an opponent took a cheap shot, you waited….and got him back at an opportune time. Theoretically, at least, with government, we're all on the same team.