This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.
That is the opening paragraph of this lead editorial in today's New York Times, which fully and forcefully supports the action taken yesterday by Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats to limit the abuse of the rules by Senate Republicans.
This vote was long overdue. “I have waited 18 years for this moment,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.
Noting that the Republicans have persistently abused the rules during Obama's presidency, the editorial calls the recent blocking of the three nominees to the DC Circuit "the last straw."

The editorial notes

Republicans warned that the rule change could haunt the Democrats if they lost the White House and the Senate. But the Constitution gives presidents the right to nominate top officials in their administration and name judges, and it says nothing about the ability of a Senate minority to stop them. (The practice barely existed before the 1970s.) From now on, voters will have to understand that presidents are likely to get their way on nominations if their party controls the Senate.
Note that last sentence again: From now on, voters will have to understand that presidents are likely to get their way on nominations if their party controls the Senate.  One can legitimately make this a campaign issue, one perhaps more easily understood than has been the long-term implication for the judicial branch of the choices a President makes.

The Times goes on to note the continuation of the 60 vote threshold for ending legislative filibusters, a continuation they support.  The paper also supports the further idea of requiring talking filibusters, reversing a practice that began when Majority Leader Mike Mansfield allowed the intent of a filibuster to effectively block the Senate at the same time the threshold for cloture was lowered from 67 to 60 (Chris Hayes covered this last night).  The editorial notes that such a change  

could finally spell an end to logjams that have prevented important legislation from reaching votes.
 After all, requiring Senators to take the floor and speak puts them on public record in a way that will allow the American people to decide whether the obstruction they offer is something to be taken into account when next voting for those imposing the filibuster - I suspect few will want to subject their party to the potential wrath of the American electorate, which except for Tea Party types wants government to work.

The editorial concludes that making the change by a simple majority vote had ample precedent, although it cautions that doing so by simply majority should be done "judiciously."  It considered the vote yesterday an appropriate application of the power because

it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.
What the Democrats should now, in my opinion, due, is to begin to put forward all nominations still pending that have been blocked by Republican obstructionism.  Dare the Republicans to try other dilatory tactics on these, or to try to take revenge by blocking all legislation.  I suspect should they take such a path, the Times will not be the only major media outlet taking them to taks editorially.

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.