Tweet
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), drunk on the power and joy of obstructionism, has decided to bring our government to a halt until Democrats promise to give his state some pork. Shelby has put an hold on every single one of Obama’s pending nominees. The genie is out of the bottle with this abuse of Senate rules. Why not hold everything hostage for every demand you can think of if you have the power? In an institution that insists on giving every single member an insane amount of power to ruin the basic workings of our government, it was only going to be a matter of time before someone like Shelby decided to pay real hardball. Matt Ygleslias puts it very well:
At any rate, I congratulate Shelby on fully exploring the logic of the modern United States Senate. Why, after all, should a great nation of 300 million people have a functioning government if preventing the government from functioning can help a lone Senator advance parochial interests? Why should a Senator act like a statesman when all the objective forces are urging him to act like an unusually pretentious ward heeler? Why hold one nominee when you can hold seven or seventy? Good for him! Now can we change this process?
If Democrats don’t shut down this nonsense quick and hard with a plan to reform the broken rules of the Senate, this type of abuse will only get more and more common. Shelby maybe the one abusing the rules, but until Harry Reid creates a plan to stop this abuse, his official position is technically – I don’t agree with your abuse of the insane amount of power we give individual senators to ruin our entire government, but I will defend to my political death your right as a senator to do it. Of course, without a strong response and a show of leadership, Reid’s political death will come very soon.
It appears senators really are like children — if you give them an inch, they will try to take a mile.
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
uhm….yes
There are two conflicting powers here— President’s duty to staff a government, and the Senate’s duty to advise and consent to the president’s nominations. If Obama tapped his inner W., he’d just recess appoint every vacant position, John Bolten-style. The appointments would last till the end of this Congress and if they still haven’t confirmed the appointments, he can do it again for another two years. In which case, he’ll probably need to shift the players around the field, I don’t think he can recess appoint the same person to the same position twice.
Good diary John Walker that addresses an important issue.
I think the problem with the Senate is that senators have consciously designed rules that make their institution much more powerful than the more democratic House. They want it that way. Senators of both parties want to keep or increase their powers.
Getting rid of hapless Harry Reid and getting a more effective majority leader might be a good start. But the Senate needs a complete overhaul, doing away completely with the filibuster. In the long term, perhaps a constitutional convention limiting its powers (or doing away with it as the House of Lords was rally bi-passed in the U.K.) might be preferred even though that is obviously much, much more difficult.
Nor is the “recess appointment” method the way to go. If Obama appointed someone this way, their position would end at the end of this Congress (next January). That’s not a terribly efficient way for government to work.