Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dsc

(52,166 posts)
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:36 PM Jul 2013

Reid, and our squishy on filibuster senators, didn't cave

First, the entire time this was about 7 nominees, Corday to head Consumer Affairs, nominees to Labor, EPA, Commerence and 3 labor board nominees. He got 5 of them now (all but 2 labor board nominees) and the other 2 by the 27 of Aug. He was offered all 7 now but would have given up the right to go nuclear for the rest of the Congress. He said no to that. He won, plain and simple.

http://www.dailykos.com/

Here are the nominees that were part of the deal

Richard Cordray, director, Bureau of Consumer Financial protection. Nominated July, 17, 2011.

_Richard Griffin, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated December 15, 2011.

_Sharon Block, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated December 15, 2011.

_Mark Pearce, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated April 9, 2013.

_Tom Perez, secretary of Labor. Nominated March 18, 2013.

_Gina McCarthy, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Nominated March 4, 2013.

_Fred Hochberg, president and chairman of the Board of Directors, U.S. Export-Import Bank.

Griffin and Block will be replaced by anyone Obama chooses by 27 Aug.

26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Reid, and our squishy on filibuster senators, didn't cave (Original Post) dsc Jul 2013 OP
That's the way I read it. Thanks. lamp_shade Jul 2013 #1
No. This is NOT about 7 appointments. BlueStreak Jul 2013 #2
that was never in the cards dsc Jul 2013 #3
It SHOULD have been in the cards BlueStreak Jul 2013 #6
not judicial ones dsc Jul 2013 #8
it SHOULD include judivial appointments BlueStreak Jul 2013 #11
No ATF dsc Jul 2013 #12
Do you think the judicial appointments are less important that these bureaucrat jobs? BlueStreak Jul 2013 #22
I would imagine he doesn't have 51 votes to go after judical nominations dsc Jul 2013 #24
I think that is the case BlueStreak Jul 2013 #25
So in essence, he got the nominees, with a slight delay, and he keeps the gun pointed at them. backscatter712 Jul 2013 #4
yep dsc Jul 2013 #5
Tell me when you think we will see confirmation votes on the DC Appeals Court BlueStreak Jul 2013 #10
EPA will be today or tomorrow dsc Jul 2013 #14
Slight delay??? progressoid Jul 2013 #7
No a bit over a month dsc Jul 2013 #9
Cordray was first picked for the CFPB in July of 2011 progressoid Jul 2013 #13
that is a sunk cost dsc Jul 2013 #16
It didn't have to be. progressoid Jul 2013 #19
Thanks. Scurrilous Jul 2013 #15
What he did was trade 7 possible votes for a functioning Senate. Piss-poor-trade. 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #17
they will be approved dsc Jul 2013 #18
repubs still control the senate from a minority position. weak dems. nt msongs Jul 2013 #20
"He won" Dawgs Jul 2013 #21
Why should this be seen as a "cave"? Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2013 #23
Exactly. The Republicans caved rather than get nuked. backscatter712 Jul 2013 #26
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
2. No. This is NOT about 7 appointments.
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:47 PM
Jul 2013

It is about the whole process of blocking ALL appointments. These 7 are relatively minor compared to the Federal bench vacancies, EPA, Consumer Protection Bureau and many others pending and those to come.

I said there would never be a vote on this, that the COP would strike a last minute deal because they want to keep the stall machine alive on the big ones.

It will take Reid another 6 months to get his people lined up again to press for the next batch of appointments. This is bullshit. These Democrats are worthless.

The only worthwhile negotiated agreement, short of an outright rules change, would guarantee timely votes on ALL appointments.

dsc

(52,166 posts)
3. that was never in the cards
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:49 PM
Jul 2013

I would prefer no filibuster at all but that isn't what they were debating.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
6. It SHOULD have been in the cards
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:55 PM
Jul 2013

And in fact, the rules changes that Reid was threatening would have applied to all Presidential appointments, I believe.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
11. it SHOULD include judivial appointments
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:01 PM
Jul 2013

Does this agreement get us votes on EPA, ATF, and the consumer protection agency?

dsc

(52,166 posts)
12. No ATF
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:05 PM
Jul 2013

Here is the list.

Richard Cordray, director, Bureau of Consumer Financial protection. Nominated July, 17, 2011.

_Richard Griffin, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated December 15, 2011.

_Sharon Block, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated December 15, 2011.

_Mark Pearce, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated April 9, 2013.

_Tom Perez, secretary of Labor. Nominated March 18, 2013.

_Gina McCarthy, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Nominated March 4, 2013.

_Fred Hochberg, president and chairman of the Board of Directors, U.S. Export-Import Bank.

The delayed nominees will be Griffin and Block who have to be replaced but can be replaced by anyone Obama wants and those would be confirmed by 27 August.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
22. Do you think the judicial appointments are less important that these bureaucrat jobs?
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:21 PM
Jul 2013

It is complete crap to make a deal that does not guarantee that Obama's judicial appointees will get a timely vote.

And we know how this little game works. This is the last deal for another 6 months. There won't be a bit of action on the nominees that were not on this list. The Dem cowards will not take any action until the GOP has stalled for another 9 months. We'll be back here next March talking about Lucy and her football all over again, meanwhile the GOP will have gotten themselves another 9 months down the road without our judges being on the bench.

dsc

(52,166 posts)
24. I would imagine he doesn't have 51 votes to go after judical nominations
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:41 PM
Jul 2013

so that means people need to call DE, MT, and RI where we have wobbly senators.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
25. I think that is the case
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:57 PM
Jul 2013

I know lots of things have changed in 50 years, but I cannot imagine LBJ having any "wobbly senators" when he really wanted to get something done. It seems to me the Majority Leader does have the ability to lay out some punishment, but we never hear of Reid doing that.

I understand a Senator wandering off the ranch for something like gun control or other similar issues that could seriously put reelection at risk. There is no such risk in pushing for the GOP to simply follow the Constitution on the President's judicial appointments. No Senator is ever going to lose an election because he voted for a rules change. Reid needs to bust some balls.

[font size="5"]Elections [/font][font size="1" color="grey"]apparently don't[/font][font size="5"] have consequences.[/font]

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
4. So in essence, he got the nominees, with a slight delay, and he keeps the gun pointed at them.
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:52 PM
Jul 2013

Not bad.

dsc

(52,166 posts)
5. yep
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:54 PM
Jul 2013

I am not enamored of the delay since it also involves a change of nominees but they can be anyone Obama wants aside from the 2 that are there.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
10. Tell me when you think we will see confirmation votes on the DC Appeals Court
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:00 PM
Jul 2013

Or when we will see votes on the 60 judicial vacancies?

See http://judicialnominations.org/

And when can I expect to see the EPA director confirmed?

And when will I see an ATF director confirmed?

This bullshit is nothing to celebrate. They have just taken another step to institutionalize sabotage of nominations. This is a great day for the GOP. But any day they negotiate with Obama or Reid is guaranteed to be a pretty good day.

dsc

(52,166 posts)
14. EPA will be today or tomorrow
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:06 PM
Jul 2013

ATF wasn't one of the nominees on the list, no judical nominees were on the list. Here is the list.

Richard Cordray, director, Bureau of Consumer Financial protection. Nominated July, 17, 2011.

_Richard Griffin, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated December 15, 2011.

_Sharon Block, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated December 15, 2011.

_Mark Pearce, member, National Labor Relations Board. Nominated April 9, 2013.

_Tom Perez, secretary of Labor. Nominated March 18, 2013.

_Gina McCarthy, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Nominated March 4, 2013.

_Fred Hochberg, president and chairman of the Board of Directors, U.S. Export-Import Bank.

progressoid

(49,996 posts)
19. It didn't have to be.
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:12 PM
Jul 2013

Reid et.al. could have done this 5 years ago & saved us all a lot of sunk costs.

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
17. What he did was trade 7 possible votes for a functioning Senate. Piss-poor-trade.
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:11 PM
Jul 2013

No nomination was approved, all that happened was that Republicans agreed to let the nominations proceed to votes - and for that Harry agreed to more of the same, on Mitch McConnell's word as a Senator and a gentleman.

dsc

(52,166 posts)
18. they will be approved
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:12 PM
Jul 2013

Cordray has already passed the filibuster and either will be voted on today or tomorrow.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,436 posts)
23. Why should this be seen as a "cave"?
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:27 PM
Jul 2013

We're getting the nominees we wanted and if the Republicans don't keep their end of the bargain, Reid can STILL push the nuclear button. That being said, I think that some serious reform of how the filibuster can be used needs to be done (and should be done soon). Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the filibuster intact but requiring more votes to keep it going over time- thus ensuring that both the will of the minority AND majority is respected. It gives opponents the opportunity to state their case (if they have one) and get other people to agree with them but still (eventually) allows an up-or-down vote to be held. The use of the filibuster for the sake of obstruction for obstruction's sake has GOT to end IMHO.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
26. Exactly. The Republicans caved rather than get nuked.
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 04:30 PM
Jul 2013

Reid got everything he demanded, and the gun's still pointed at the GOP.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Reid, and our squishy on ...