Skip to main content

View Diary: The Filibuster is Not a Check or Balance (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did you feel and write the same (0+ / 0-)

    When W. was in office and senate republicans threatened the nuclear option?  Just curious....

    •  I hadn't thought about that issue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      J M F, progressivevoice

      In depth at the time, but my general inclination is that all Presidential appointments deserve an up or down vote, and that Senate confirmation should mostly check whether the proposed person is fit for the job.  Republicans shouldn't have blocked nominees in the 90's for being too liberal, and Democrats shouldn't have blocked nominees in the 00's for being too conservative.  If you don't want conservative nominees, make sure there's not a conservative President.  

      Elections have consequences, win or lose.  

    •  They did/do it anyway. Effectively. (0+ / 0-)

      I know, let's not even allow hearings for 60 Clinton appointees... so there's be plenty of spots free if our guy gets in, and then we can scream like little girls about Democratic obstruction when only ~20% of the most conservative of those get rejected.

      That'll do it.

      And now of course we have the unprecedented number of Obama appointments languishing. With no valid concerns about their suitibility

      Do you not realise this? Or is your "concern" worthy of the quotes I just put around it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site