tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3934848049340904022..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Hey, Jon Huntsman! Want an Issue?Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42532594286832592932011-10-14T17:13:08.035-05:002011-10-14T17:13:08.035-05:00Matt,
You say if they "reduce cloture to a m...Matt,<br /><br />You say if they "reduce cloture to a majority...holds will largely be worthless." Why? Holds certainly weren't worthless during the 111th Congress when Dems had the votes for cloture -- indeed, holds weren't and aren't worthless even on uncontroversial nominations that eventually get approved 100-0 or 99-1. <br /><br />An individual or small-group hold doesn't have strength because it could actually prevent something; it has strength because of the threat to chew up time. That would still be true if it took a simple majority for cloture. No?Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-31295886163412079322011-10-14T11:56:27.123-05:002011-10-14T11:56:27.123-05:00Jon:
I don't see it with the holds. It worked...Jon:<br /><br />I don't see it with the holds. It worked reasonably well prior to 2008 because the norms of the institution prevented Members from fully exerting their rights. Those norms are falling apart. Sure, you can ban off-the-floor holds and force people to come down to the floor and object to UCs (or get a proxy member to do it), but unless you make the key motions non-debatable or reduce cloture to a majority, you aren't really changing anything. Once once you do either of those things, the holds will largely be worthless.<br /><br />I agree that reducing cloture to a majority would be helpful for exec. noms while still allowing the minority to drag it out and air their greivances, without actually blocking it. (although now that Reid has shown the willingness to use the non-debatable post-cloture point of order appeal to tighten the post-cloture rules by bare majority, it looks like all of post-cloture debate time is in the cross-hairs for pairing down).Matt Glassmanhttp://www.mattglassman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16940079651000145372011-10-14T09:33:04.392-05:002011-10-14T09:33:04.392-05:00As someone who did some stuff with Huntsman back i...As someone who did some stuff with Huntsman back in USTR days, I think he is talking much further down the food chain. In other words, not people who get senate confimations.<br /><br />Just getting your top 5 people into an office can be a year long hassle.<br /><br />I'd remove senate confirmation for everything below cabinet secretary and indpendent agencies.charlienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54266451895135270522011-10-13T23:46:31.889-05:002011-10-13T23:46:31.889-05:00Matt and Andrew,
I do believe that a majority vot...Matt and Andrew,<br /><br />I do believe that a majority vote with holds system can work -- after all, it's what they basically had from when holds started (IIRC early 1960s?) through, more or less, 2008. Holds would have to be managed aggressively, but I don't think that's impossible at all. Basically, my sense is that if Senator Smith wants to work out something for Interest X in her state before allowing the nomination to move forward, then the Majority Leader should give her the chance to do so. That's basically what holds are supposed to be for. But if it's "I won't allow anyone to come up until major legislation is overturned," then tough luck, the nomination goes to the floor. <br /><br />IMO, that is in fact a manageable system.<br /><br />(I'd probably retain the cloture system but just reduce the requirement to a simple majority for exec branch nominations; that gives the minority at least the option of forcing two votes + postcloture time, which I think is plenty for protest (and even enough to kill some nominations in some circumstances).Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-35843327891894047912011-10-13T15:18:29.470-05:002011-10-13T15:18:29.470-05:00This is a solution looking for a problem.
You ca...This is a solution looking for a problem. <br /><br />You can dump the filibuster, and I'm sorta meh on that one. It's sorta like Obama's jobs bill... the Senate Left didn't want it... but they'd rather that the R's dispose of it, and the filibuster permits this. Everybody seems to like it, for that reason. <br /><br />Same with nominees. If you can't get to 60 on a nominee, it probably means the president's own party is split at minimum, and he needs to select somebody else. <br /><br />No need for commissions, and it isn't intrusive for people to answer questionnaires and do financial disclosure, so Huntsman is just whining to no good purpose on that score. <br /><br />I wouldn't be planning on any Senate "reform", by the way. In January 2013, the Senate rules will come up for vote, and I'll bet you a dollar they get passed as is, no matter if 6-8 raving Tea Partyers are freshly elected to the body. The old guard is still the old guard, and they like them rules just like they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79601066609161067222011-10-13T14:14:44.402-05:002011-10-13T14:14:44.402-05:00Also, isn't there a role for the media here?
...Also, isn't there a role for the media here?<br /><br />Does our scandal-obsessed media bear some of the blame? If an undocumented alien is paid under the table in a forest of good reporters, does it make a sound? <br /><br />I don't know what would happen if the media wasn't chomping at the bit to do the out-party's dirty work for them. Maybe, if the media weren't so scandal-obsessed, interest groups would get the word out to people, and they'd reflect the pressure back to Congress, and the same results would obtain. Maybe party networks (in the absence of a scandal-obsessed media) would coordinate to make the scandal a talking point for their party, and therefore, a big deal. Or maybe gumdrops would fall from the sky and we'd appoint qualified public servants.<br /><br />I guess the question is how much agency the media has in this process.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-82420352298109980872011-10-13T12:05:52.768-05:002011-10-13T12:05:52.768-05:00I don't understand how simplifying the vetting...I don't understand how simplifying the vetting process would help anything. The out-party still has a strong incentive to unearth any potentially controversial tidbits from the nominee's past. A reduced vetting process would just ensure that those efforts would be successful more often. Result: fewer confirmed nominees.<br /><br />And this is true even if you return to majority-vote confirmations. (Incidentally, if each Senator still has the unchecked right to place a "hold" on any nomination, then we're no closer to a majority-rules system then we are now.)<br /><br /><i>it's actually in the Senate's interest to be able to process nominations far more efficiently than they do now.</i><br /><br />Uh... since when do Senators care about what's "in the Senate's interest"? They care about what's in their party's interest; what's in their constituents' interest; what's in their own personal interest. If Senators gave a single solitary fuck about what's in the best interest of the body itself, they sure haven't shown that in the past decade or so.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15913245096162048743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27038784413828280402011-10-13T11:55:44.309-05:002011-10-13T11:55:44.309-05:00Nice post. I agree with the overall thrust.
But I...Nice post. I agree with the overall thrust.<br /><br />But I'm not sure I follow how you can arrive at a simple-majority confirmation procedure that also maintains a holds system of any value. <br /><br />What value does a hold against a UC to proceed have if a simple majority can end debate on the MTP or if the rules limit debate? The holds only have power when they block UCs on motions to proceed because they are implicitly threats of filibusters. <br /><br />But if you take away that filibuster threat (by, for example, making the MTP to a nomination non-debatable (or debate-limited) and capping total hours of debate on nominations), then there's no advantage to the hold, no?Matt Glassmanhttp://www.mattglassman.comnoreply@blogger.com