- Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has gotten the vapors. All of the vapors.
Following a historic rules change in the Senate, Sen. Rand Paul says that what the higher chamber needs now is an anti-bullying policy.
“What we really need is an anti-bullying ordinance in the Senate,” Paul told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday, referring to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
- Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) should probably never use the word "shame." (Also.)
- Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has climbed a flagpole and it's going to take all of Twitter to talk him down:
- It looks like one of the memos that went out is something something Obamacare.
"It sounds to me like Harry Reid is trying to change the subject and if I were taking all the incoming fire that he's taking over Obamacare, I'd try to change the subject too," House Speaker John Boehner said.
- On the more constructive/destructive side of things, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says that the revised rule is so outrageous that when the Republicans next get in charge they'll expand it.
"The silver lining is that there will come a day when roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes," Grassley said, "regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for Supreme Court."
- The Republican looking to oust Mitch McConnell wasted no time using it against him:
- The conservative think-tankers are beside themselves in grief:
Let it be remembered that on Nov. 21, 2013, the United States Senate as we know it effectively died, murdered by Harry Reid to protect Obama’s administrative state from legitimate judicial scrutiny.
- If you're into a little nutpicking, and you really ought to be, you'll know that Free Republic always delivers the best.
- National Review may deserve a special prize, from one columnist arguing that changing Senate rules is a slippery slope to military coup, to musings over future presidents Ted Cruz or Ron Paul—and I think that thought nicely makes fun of itself, thank you—to the thought that perhaps we should just defund the courts rather than tolerate a Democratic president wanting to appoint people to them. (I do believe some of these people actually bought the notion that nominating judges to vacant seats constitutes "packing" the courts, in which case I feel a bit ashamed that we have not sufficiently humiliated them. Clearly, we must redouble our efforts.)