GOP to Obama: Do Not Try to Confirm New AG in Lame Duck Session
Looks like the GOP thinks it’s winning the Senate in November — because they’re warning Obama not to replace Eric Holder in the lame-duck session:
Conservatives are warning President Obama against using a lame-duck session of Congress to push through Attorney General Eric Holder’s replacement, even as the White House signals its intention to fill the post quickly.
. . . .
But even if, as many predict, Republicans reclaim control of the Senate in the approaching midterm elections, they would be largely powerless to block Democrats from using their current majority to confirm an attorney general before the new Congress is gaveled into session in January.
“Rather than rush a nominee through the Senate in a lame-duck session, I hope the president will now take his time to nominate a qualified individual who can start fresh relationships with Congress so that we can solve the problems facing our country,” said Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Hope all you like, sir. He’ll do it anyway, and you’ll sit there and take it.
“Rather than rush a nominee through the Senate in a lame-duck session, I hope the president will now take his time to nominate a qualified individual who can start fresh relationships with Congress so that we can solve the problems facing our country,”
Senator Chuck Grassley is hoping for a change. So, what are the chances Barack Obama will put the interests of the nation ahead of his political party’s chances in the upcoming mid-term elections?
Slim and none!
And, BTW, Chuck, hobo’s want ham sandwiches too.
ropelight (923995) — 9/26/2014 @ 6:51 amFrom a practical standpoint, whom can he nominate that’s worse than Holder and not in prison?
nk (dbc370) — 9/26/2014 @ 6:59 am“Shouldn’t we instead unite to defeat the Republicans? The democrats are an unchanging moocher reality. They will never be budged away from the path they are on, at least not for a very long time.
But the Republicans… they are the real problem. There can be no real opposition to the democrats, and no reform, and no steering us away from the cliff, when the party that opposes the democrats is the party of Mitt Romney. It’s a rigged game. We have to change the rules. ”
– Lemuel H. Lemming IV
Colonel Haiku (d0a528) — 9/26/2014 @ 7:04 amPresident Obama will nominate an individual who is not only singularly unqualified but whose past endeavors are guaranteed to infuriate the Republicans. Preferably someone who has documented statements equating Republicans with Nazis and suggesting that they be sterilized, if not exterminated. However, this individual will fit a demographic model (perhaps a Hispanic woman) that, with the assistance of a compliant, obsequious media, will allow the Administration to maintain that any opposition to this individual is representative of the Republican Party’s animosity towards women and minorities. To bolster turnout in November, this tactic might well succeed.
Perhaps here is Bob Beckel’s “October Surprise.” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388368/bob-beckel-warns-october-surprise-dems-andrew-johnson
Lorem Ipsum (cee048) — 9/26/2014 @ 7:27 amTo bolster turnout in November, this tactic might well succeed.
The various communities throughout the US and countries throughout the world where liberalism has been running amok for years, decades or generations (eg, urban America, blue-state America, nations like France, Sweden, Mexico, Argentina, etc) are important to mull over because they illustrate just how bad a place can become — and remain — and yet be full of people who never change their way of thinking and voting. Simply put, the idiocy of liberalism seems to be a human affliction, apparently embedded in quite a few folks, and changing that may be akin to changing people’s DNA.
It’s not a matter of being overly cynical to theorize that America could very well regress into quite a place that’s very pathetic, very mediocre in the future.
Mark (c160ec) — 9/26/2014 @ 7:40 amthe GOPe is only slightly more likely to take the Senate back in November than i am to be elected Miss America next year…
they’ve insulted their base, crammed every RINO they could find down the throats of the party faithful, and have generally rolled over & played dead for the last 6 years every time they had a chance to stop Obumbles from doing something ignorant.
we don’t refer to them as the “Party of St00pid” out of sarcasm. hell, even if they did manage to “take back” the Senate, they would be like a dog with a physics text book: they haven’t the faintest idea what to do with it.
rest assured the Dems will run circles around them, parliamentarian-wise, and the usual suspects will “reach across the aisle” to show how wonderfully bipartisan they are, giving away whole stores for worthless promises of future cooperation.
fortunately, since i live in the People’s Republic of #Failifornia, it doesn’t really matter to me: the willful idiots here will reelect the poltroons we always send up north & back east, and then wonder why we continue our long, slow slide into banana republic status.
and no, i am NOT voting for #CashAndCarry: that carpetbagging RINO can go straight to hell. better another 4 years of Moonbeam than 4 years of Moonbeam light.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 9/26/2014 @ 7:43 amI’m gonna put a fiver on D. Patrick.
Republicans are irrelevant and will remain.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/26/2014 @ 7:48 amand have generally rolled over & played dead for the last 6 years every time they had a chance to stop Obumbles from doing something ignorant.
What specifically are some things they had the chance to stop for the last 6 years?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/26/2014 @ 8:25 amWow !
With a few exceptions, the early morning bunch of commenters are relentlessly pessimistic ! Seems like they either need to double their first intake of caffein (or cut it out entirely!) …
What redc1c4 #6 calls “Moonbeam lite” is a paper-cut finger when compared to the femoral artery semi-amputation that is Governor “Moonbeam” …
I hadn’t realised that Democrat propaganda was quite so effective, to induce such depths of doubt and despair in someone otherwise as smart as redc1c4 …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 9/26/2014 @ 8:34 am===they’ve insulted their base, crammed every RINO they could find down the throats of the party faithful,…. ==
One thing I have learned from this site and am trying to process meaningfully is that a lot of people believe that they, and not others, are the GOP “base” and are the party faithful.
Hey, what if we’re all part of the GOP base?!!
elissa (b1a698) — 9/26/2014 @ 8:36 am#10
Yeah, if in a primary the Tea Party person got 10,000 votes and another candidate got 10,500, then the 10,500 non-base voters crammed their candidate down the throats of the 10,000 base voters.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/26/2014 @ 8:49 amI’ll be voting for Tea Partier Dave Brat on election day. If Cantor had won the primary (which I didn’t bother to vote in) I’d be voting for him. Am I in the base?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/26/2014 @ 8:54 amIt is very easy to make this stick: tell the Dems that their committee assignments will suck even worse in the new Congress if they do this.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 9/26/2014 @ 9:07 am#10: It almost seems like some “base” voters (who oddly don’t like Republicans much) don’t want to have to suffer primary elections where actual GOP voters get a say.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 9/26/2014 @ 9:12 amOT–but interesting. Remember Roland Burris, that U.S. Senator who was named by Blago to briefly replace Senator Obama before an election could be held? It appears he managed to use his brief time in Washington well.
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/new-details-federal-probe-former-us-sen-roland-burris/fri-09262014-1009am
elissa (b1a698) — 9/26/2014 @ 9:18 amIs it cynical to recognize that, generally, the media doesn’t referee the contest equitably?
They’re biased and even if they accept this, they operate under the delusion that they’ve compartmentalized their biases and behave professionally as objective observers. This is something that few are capable of. Generally, the hold the presumption that the Democrats wish to do good, and that the Republicans wish to restrain them from doing so. Even if the Democrats fail to do good, they should be given the benefit of the doubt for trying to do good in the first place. Frequently, this failure is attributed to Republican opposition. Accordingly, Republicans must have something innately wrong with them for opposing those who wish to do good; therefore, their rationale is irrelevant.
Contemporary journalists seem to lack the understanding that, it’s possible, that both Republicans and Democrats want to do good but that the Republicans have philosophical doubts (based upon past experience) that the Democrats proposals will do any good and believe that the Democrats’ proposals will, more than likely, will do harm to those the Democrats purport to want to help. There is significant historical evidence to support this suggestion.
Because of this biased presumption, if as I suggest President Obama nominates as Attorney General an individual fitting a particular demographic who is individually repugnant to the Republicans and frames any opposition to this individual as racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc…, the media will fall into lockstep and put the Republicans on the defensive. They’ll be left trying to justify their opposition to a nominee that is objectively unsuited but in terms defined by their political opponents and accepted unquestioningly by the media.
When the Fourth Estate looks equally askew at the assertions of any and every politician, then this country will have a media worthy of respect. I won’t be holding my breath.
Lorem Ipsum (cee048) — 9/26/2014 @ 9:32 amHe can’t possibly believe that.
Eric in Hollywood (e7a744) — 9/26/2014 @ 10:09 amI was thinking the same thing.
Toss in the full “nuclear option” in the Senate and some scheme for setting up judges and it would be complete.
Sam (e8f1ad) — 9/26/2014 @ 10:46 amI definitely lean to the view the GOP won’t take the Senate, because of the skill of red state Democrat politicians in pretending to have nothing to do with Obama, and their huge spending advantage, which enables them to change the focus of the race from Obama to, say, “My Republican opponent wants to ship jobs overseas!”.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/26/2014 @ 10:47 am#10… BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/26/2014 @ 4:54 pmOh, I get it now. You’re one of …………..them. 🙂
Bill H (f9e4cd) — 9/26/2014 @ 5:01 pmAs long as the Right wallows in internal “Us vs Them” arguments, we will continue to lose. Sure, there are always provocations, inflamed by our friends in the press, but we don’t have to feed the trolls.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 9/26/2014 @ 6:10 pmRepublicans can still block the nomination. The “nuclear option” applies only for non supreme court judicial nominations, as far as I know, not to cabinet nominations. So Republicans can filibuster the nomination by not allowing cloture.
crosspatch (6adcc9) — 9/27/2014 @ 12:28 amCrosspatch, there’s a huge amount of public confusion on this, confusion that Harry Reid and his buddies have promoted and relied upon. And they appear to have fooled most people, including perhaps you.
Nothing but self-restraint prevents Harry Reid from refusing to recognize a filibuster of non-SCOTUS nominees. The text of the rule on cloture, Senate Rule XXI, makes no distinction based on whether the debate pertains to certain types of appointments. On its face, the cloture rule applies to everything — all Senate debate, including on legislation.
Rather, according to official Senate documents, “under a November 21, 2013, precedent established by the Senate, invoking cloture to presidential nominations to positions other than to the Supreme Court of the United States requires a vote of a majority of Senators present and voting, or 51 votes in all 100 Senators vote.” Note: No mention here either of cabinet nominees and other non-SCOTUS presidential appointments.
Guess what? Harry Reid can ignore that 2013 precedent, and set a new one that ends the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees too, with nothing more than the votes of current loyal Democrats in the Senate.
Beldar (fa637a) — 9/28/2014 @ 9:47 amIf Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to resign tomorrow, I guarantee you that nominee would be confirmed in December because the Senate would abolish the remaining pretense that SCOTUS nominees are still potentially subject to filibuster.
Beldar (fa637a) — 9/28/2014 @ 9:50 amSorry, by “that nominee” I meant “whomever Obama immediately announces as her successor.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 9/28/2014 @ 9:50 amI’d be pleased if the Republicans eliminated the remainder of the filibuster and ended holds on nominees lasting more than about a week. These are bad institutions. As for court nominees, a more salient problem would be life tenure, the lack of mandatory retirement, and the lack of popular input through retention referenda and recall. (And the worst problem is the culture of the bar and especially the appellate judiciary and the law professoriate).
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/28/2014 @ 9:54 amThis is why I say that the filibuster is already dead. There’s a zombie version that’s still staggering around, but it’s the walking dead, a convenient fiction being used by the Dems to mask and deflect attention from their profound undercutting of Senate traditions and, indeed, the entire Rule of Law.
Beldar (fa637a) — 9/28/2014 @ 9:57 amLame duck sessions are a dubious bit of business and should be eliminated. If there’s pressing business, a newly elected Congress could be called into special session in mid-November. The certification of election results could be undertaken with greater dispatch if absentee ballots were mailed out no later than 1 September and a rule was adhered to that any ballot received in the mails after the morning of election day was to be bagged, tagged, and pulped or mailed back to the voter. You’d have all the ballots you were going to count on election day and you would count them coincident with tallies of the machine count and not in a leisurely manner over succeeding weeks. (Of course, that’s expecting our election apparat to do something in a way that is not silly or half-assed. Fat chance).
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/28/2014 @ 10:01 amThe ‘Senate traditions’ were worth little, and it’s good they’re disappearing. The primary result of them was to prevent any sort of reform legislation and turn Congressional enactments (in odd eras like 1933-39 and 1965-67) into permanent fixtures; another was to induce legislators to add all sorts of special favors to legislation to get those magic 60 votes. Congress was adept at passing legislation which encoded insider conspiracies against the public weal, of course. (An example would be our perpetually gridlocked Congress rapidly enacting legislation back around 1985 which mandated the continued sale of electricity from federal hydroelectric stations out west at 1937 prices. The bad entertainment in that whole circus was remarks from the floor by Barry Goldwater about how expensive it was to air condition his house).
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/28/2014 @ 10:07 amIt would be agreeable if Congress would bust up the Department of Justice and separate the investigatory agencies from the legal counsel. That’s the way it’s done in local government and it’s difficult to see why it is not in Washington.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/28/2014 @ 10:09 amBeckel said the “surprise” would impact national security.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/28/2014 @ 10:22 amArt Deco (ee8de5) — 9/28/2014 @ 10:07 am
(An example would be our perpetually gridlocked Congress rapidly enacting legislation back around 1985 which mandated the continued sale of electricity from federal hydroelectric stations out west at 1937 prices.
If they didn’t do that, they’d be making an unnecssary profit – why shouldn’t the people getting electricity all these years, who had having built things and made financial plans based on it, get the benefit of the low cost? Same thing with businesses. (of course if you are interested in low national energy use, you might have a different opinion, but this would be the same as a tax, and Edmund Burke said an old tax ws better than a new tax – what everybody else pays is an old tax.
Nobody any where else would have benefitted from people with hydroelectric power paying more.
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/29/2014 @ 9:58 am29.Art Deco (ee8de5) — 9/28/2014 @ 10:01 am
Lame duck sessions are a dubious bit of business and should be eliminated. If there’s pressing business, a newly elected Congress could be called into special session in mid-November.
It’s the old Congress that would be called back into special session. The termsof members of Conngress now start and end on January 3.
The certification of election results could be undertaken with greater dispatch if absentee ballots were mailed out no later than 1 September and a rule was adhered to that any ballot received in the mails after the morning of election day was to be bagged, tagged, and pulped or mailed back to the voter.
That’s just changing the election day.
And the old members need time to pack, etc.
You could amend the constitution, I suppose, to have the terms for each member of Congress begin as soon as the result was deinitely known (or one week later)
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/29/2014 @ 10:02 am25. Beldar (fa637a) — 9/28/2014 @ 9:50 am
If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to resign tomorrow, I guarantee you that nominee would be confirmed in December because the Senate would abolish the remaining pretense that SCOTUS nominees are still potentially subject to filibuster.
They still wouldn’t go that fast. Not all Democrats would be in a rush to confirm. Such a scenario would be abut more likely if a President, and especially the [arty of the president, was changing.
The members of the Senate though are less independent than they used to be, like they were in 1968, but still, they wouldn’t want to confirm a Supreme Court nominee so fast, without the usual hearings and the filing of reports on finances by the nominee. Some would want to wait until the ABA or various interest groups weighed in, and manywould want to investigate the person’s record..
With the president not changing, there just wouldn’t be this rush.
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/29/2014 @ 10:07 am6. redc1c4 (abd49e) — 9/26/2014 @ 7:43 am
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/26/2014 @ 8:25 am
What specifically are some things they had the chance to stop for the last 6 years?
They actually successfully stopped the Senate from passing legislation that was supposed to stop the seas from rising and heal the planet.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Waxman-Markey_Climate_Bill
This website appears not to have been updated past March, 2010.
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/tracking_a_killer_investigatin
This website says it wasn’t really Republicans who killed it (and some Republlicans had pledged not to filibuter it)
In 2003, the website says, cap and trade failed with 43 votes and in 2005 it failed again with 38 votes) and in 2008 Harry Reid pulled the bill before it could go down in embarrassing defeat and insiders put the final tally at only 35-40 votes in support of the bill.
Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 9/29/2014 @ 10:26 am