A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
In his State of the Union speech (at a point when most people had turned the channel or fallen asleep), the President called for an end to filibusters of presidential appointments.
“For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.”
Strong words, as Ted Frank points out, from a man who voted to filibuster Justice Alito. And why the odd terminology of "public service nominations?" Why not just say "executive branch nominations?" Is it because he doesn't want to insult "independent agencies" by lumping them into the executive branch (which is where they belong)?
But on to the substance! Ricochet - what do you think? Should we get rid of the filibuster? My view is that the Constitution is neutral on the point, so the Senate can do as it pleases. Generally, I think that gridlock is a good thing, and so I'm reluctant to grease the wheels of the federal machine. But then again, shouldn't the president get to put a team in place on a majority vote? Perhaps Bork would be on the bench today, rather than Anthony Kennedy, if we had the "up or down vote" rule.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
Adam,
All the more reason for the Republicans to take the Senate in 2012. Then we will shove it down their throats. Turn about is fair play.
Regards,
Jim
Aug '10
Re: A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
So the Senate adopts the rule. And Obama nominates, oh, I don't know say the Rev [sic] Wright for some court. 89 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes later, Dingy Harry says, "Gosh, I clean forgot. We need an up-or-down vote!"
Anything, no matter how small, that increases the power of the Executive should be opposed.
Feb '11
Re: A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
Brian Clendinen:
I don't like the idea of the house having the option due to an increase in grid lock therefore the Senate should not have the option either. However, when I look at the Senate I like the idea of them having it therefore I think the house should have it. My thought process might seem a little irrational but it is not · 5 hours ago
So, Brian, you think the Senate should have filibusters and the House shouldn't. Sounds like the status quo to me. So what's your problem?
Oct '11
Re: A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
He wants a simple up or down vote? What shamelessness. He's avoided Congressional approval whenever he could, with the willing cooperation of the Senate.
There's one rule for dealing with Obama: Give him nothing. Take from him everything.
May '10
Re: A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
Higgs Boson Jr
While true that once a nomination is on the floor there is no compromise possible (except horse-trading for votes on other matters), the existence of the filibuster forces compromise in the initial choice of the nominee. That is,a President whose party has a Senate majority must moderate his picks in the first place or else his nominee will face a fillibuster. Without the "protection" of the filibuster his picks, no matter how idealogically extreme, go through. And that is, I think, especially problematical with judicial appointments whose tenure lasts a lifetime.
· 6 hours ago
I understand the defense. In the Constitution, appointments must get the "advise and consent" of the Senate. A filibuster is neither, as no vote was taken on the appointee's nomination. If the appointee is unacceptable, a no vote says, "we do not consent.". Appointments are an important power given by voters to the winner of the election.
I contend filibusters unconstitutionally diminish those Article II powers.
Dec '11
Re: A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
Keith - I don't think the advise and consent clause places any positive requirement on the Senate to act, let alone mandates the procedures it uses in determining whether to give its consent. It simply says that without the Senate's consent appointments (to certain positions) can not be made. The power to appoint is unquestionably an important power bestowed on the executive, but it is circumscribed by the Senate's right to withhold consent, which they can do by voting "No" or by not voting at all. Cordially, Tom
Mar '11
Re: A Simple Up-or-Down Vote?
Israel P.
Brian Clendinen:
I don't like the idea of the house having the option due to an increase in grid lock therefore the Senate should not have the option either. However, when I look at the Senate I like the idea of them having it therefore I think the house should have it. My thought process might seem a little irrational but it is not · 5 hours ago
So, Brian, you think the Senate should have filibusters and the House shouldn't. Sounds like the status quo to me. So what's your problem? · 4 hours ago
My point was first glance I find it silly that the house does not also have filibusters. Then when you think it thru the statas quo is fine for the most part. Although I think I would be for removing it for nominations considering how dysfunctional the Senate has become. There are a lot of unqualified nominations that should be filibustered but the system is so abused that it is making the nomination process absurd. However, if Senators for the most part were actually constantly principled on filibustering nomination, then no change.