- George Zimmerman will not be charged in domestic dispute
- Russian officials press bilateral U.S. trade deal
- Selfies at Funerals blog creator retires after Obama flub: ‘Our work here is done’
- New Obama adviser Podesta is against Keystone but will steer clear of pipeline deliberations
- 40 Australian adults, children found in ‘one of the worst accounts of incest ever made public’
- Venezuela’s Maduro calls on student ‘price vigilantes’ to hit the streets, report businesses
- Atheists smug as Hindus join Satanists to demand display at Oklahoma Statehouse
- Bow before Valkyrie, NASA’s ‘superhero robot’ entry in DARPA challenge
- 10-year-old Pennsylvania boy suspended for pretend bow-and-arrow shooting
- All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget pact
LAMBRO: Brinkmanship in the Senate
Opposing parties test their nerves with a ‘nuclear option’
Question of the Day
By “fixed,” Mr. Reid really means rigged in favor of his party.
The Nevada Democrat, whose state (with 9.5 percent unemployment) is a prime example of President Obama’s failed economic policies, proposed changing the rules of the game this week so he and his cohorts would be able to run roughshod over the democratic rights of the minority whenever they wanted.
Mr. Reid’s threatened rules change is known as the “nuclear option,” which Republican leaders said was the equivalent of telling their party to “sit down and shut up.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, always protective of his party’s rights under the chamber’s long-held parliamentary rules, said that if Mr. Reid ever got his way, it would be “a sad, sad day for the United States. And if we don’t pull back from the brink here, my friend, the majority leader, is going to be remembered as the worst leader in the Senate ever.”
Well, it was, shall we say, a testy exchange between the two leaders over an issue that pops up every now and then in the Senate, only to pull back from the brink in the end. That’s what happened Tuesday.
Both sides were in negotiations, led by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to find a way around the impasse, after a closed-door meeting of nearly all 100 senators in the Old Senate Chamber used in the 1800s.
Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new federal bureaucracy that Republicans want to change or abolish. An appeals court ruled in January that Mr. Obama’s appointments of Mr. Cordray and two members at the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional because the Senate was technically not in recess. The Supreme Court will review the cases this fall.
Fred Hochberg, picked to head the Export-Import Bank, was being blocked by GOP senators who oppose his nomination because they object to the agency that funnels huge subsidies to some of the richest Fortune 500 corporations in the nation.
Unlike the House, where the leadership decides which legislation will be brought to the floor and the rules under which it will be considered, the Senate operates by and large on unanimous consent. One or more members can block legislation or nominations by a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to overcome.
Under increasing pressure from the White House, Mr. Reid threatened to change the rules to allow a simple majority vote to act on all presidential nominations. With a 54-to-46 Democratic majority, the rights of the minority for extended debate and examination of a nominee’s background and positions would be lost.
That change, if it were made, could come back to bite the Democrats in future Congresses.
“I think there’s enough recognition on both sides that the shoe can be on the other foot rather quickly and that people in the majority today will be in the minority tomorrow, and vice versa,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the GOP’s second-ranking Republican.
The Constitution that governs the way Congress works merely says the president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” to nominate officials in the government. It can offer it or withhold it.
It also gives each house of Congress the sole power “to determine the rules of its proceedings .” We are governed by majority rule, but also with the proviso that the minority in Congress has certain rights to guard against the tyranny of the majority.
There’s a long history of political battles over the rules that govern the minority’s rights in Congress, but the news media sometimes exaggerates the tenor and tone of these disputes.
“The once-genteel Senate is looking more like a fight club,” The Washington Post declared this week.
“The U.S. Senate, once considered the most exclusive and chummy club in America, has in recent years been transformed into an ideological war zone, where comity and compromise have lost their allure.”
In fact, the fights being waged today are nothing like the legislative donnybrooks that took place in the old days when there were fistfights, duels and worse.
In Doris Kearns Goodwin’s brilliant book, “Team of Rivals,” about Abraham Lincoln’s presidency during the Civil War, she tells of Delaware Sen. Willard Saulsbury’s gun-wielding “liquor-fueled harangue” against Lincoln, calling him “an imbecile,” among other things.
“Called to order by Vice President Hamlin, he refused to take his seat. When the sergeant at arms approached to take Saulsbury into custody, he pulled out his revolver. ‘Damn you,’ he said, pointing the pistol at the sergeant’s head, ‘if you touch me I’ll shoot you dead.” The wild scene continued for some time before Saulsbury was removed from the Senate floor.”
That was mild compared to the day South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks walked into the Senate with a heavy cane and savagely bludgeoned Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner over his anti-slavery speech, nearly killing him.
Despite all of Congress‘ institutional failings, and its inability to come to grips with the overwhelming economic and social ills that afflict our country, Capitol Hill is a far more civil place than in years long past.
It remains polarized because of deep ideological beliefs on both sides of the aisle, a chief executive who is in over his head and cannot lead, and a divided electorate — one that wants a lot more government and the other that wants a lot less.
This week, however, the two sides came together in a compromise that avoided the “nuclear” trigger. No one got everything they wanted, but everyone lived to fight another day.
Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and contributor to The Washington Times.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
By Matt Kibbe
The short-term deal will assure long-term overspending
Get Breaking Alerts
- Rand Paul: Budget deal 'shameful,' 'huge mistake'
- All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget pact
- Teen thugs in D.C. run wild -- even while wearing GPS ankle bracelets
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- Obama's antics at Nelson Mandela tribute: Jovial conversation, handshake with Raul Castro
- American bourbon now better than Scottish whisky: U.K.-born expert
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Biden guarantees victory on immigration reform
- Study IDs reasons for late-term abortions
- Inside the Ring: China targets Global Hawk drone