tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post5119280833197186694..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: The Filibuster and HagelJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-72264605380324183482013-02-04T08:51:05.066-06:002013-02-04T08:51:05.066-06:00With respect, Jonathan, I'm not sure what the ...With respect, Jonathan, I'm not sure what the intended point is--and think it might turn on ambiguity regarding the actor "Republicans" (and interestingly, the "they" in the last paragraph has no clear referent).<br /><br />That is: what's the difference between saying that the Republican leadership can't hold its caucus if the leadership tries to filibuster nominations, and saying that "Republicans" accept a norm of not filibustering nominations? If there's a "handful of cloture/don't confirm senators," that would seem evidence of the former; and I don't see any but a metaphysical difference between that and the latter. If a filibuster-proof majority of the Senate believes that cabinet nominees should not be filibustered, that seems to me to entail a norm that cabinet nominees should not be filibustered.Andrew Sablhttp://publicaffairs.ucla.edu/andrew-sablnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59551112842868824652013-02-03T09:19:48.343-06:002013-02-03T09:19:48.343-06:00The hearing looked like a war of platitudes, as if...The hearing looked like a war of platitudes, as if everyone feared accusations of being too thoughtful. (How dare he suggest there's no yes-or-no answer! No, he's not deviating; he really meant this pointless slogan.) The most generous interpretation I can come up with is that everyone viewed it as a meaningless ritual to get out of the way before the inevitable confirmation. Hopefully, it will all be forgotten then.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5877970974815697882013-02-02T16:19:14.678-06:002013-02-02T16:19:14.678-06:00But will contributors and (primary) voters be sati...But will contributors and (primary) voters be satisfied with a "No" vote without a filibuster? Many of them could not care less about precedents--they just want the GOP to do whatever it can to thwart Obama on anything. David Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09260587086663631888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16922786437923844462013-02-02T12:33:13.062-06:002013-02-02T12:33:13.062-06:00Senators filibustering against the cabinet appoint...Senators filibustering against the cabinet appointment a former Senate colleague of the same party just sounds like a bad precedent to Senators looking towards their own futures. In addition, this may be a case where GOP Senators want a clear vote to cite to contributors and voters. I don't think they care whether Hagel gets the job.PJRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-63230725472333618982013-02-01T20:52:31.892-06:002013-02-01T20:52:31.892-06:00Does it really make any difference whether a major...Does it really make any difference whether a majority of Republicans believe that cabinet appointments generally should not be filibustered (even if you oppose the nomination) or if only, say, five GOP senators so believe? Either way, an appointee gets confirmed... David Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09260587086663631888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-12072032122158975132013-02-01T16:33:28.230-06:002013-02-01T16:33:28.230-06:00Nice find. To the extent that this is about neoco...Nice find. To the extent that this is about neocons wanting to maintain supremacy within their own party, it might actually help to let the Hagel nomination go through. That way, his foreign policy perspective could be more easily linked to the Obama Agenda, as a way to bully non-interventionists out of the party.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18978514898378423252013-02-01T13:20:07.215-06:002013-02-01T13:20:07.215-06:00Yes, I agree.
It's definitely true that just ...Yes, I agree.<br /><br />It's definitely true that just counting cloture votes will miss some real filibusters, but successful ones (with the majority giving up before attempting a cloture vote) and unsuccessful (with the minority giving up and not forcing a cloture vote). Also counting cloture votes can get some false positives: majority files for cloture and uses it as a test vote even though the minority had no intention of filibustering. <br /><br />But you're right that there are false positives in what I'm describing, too. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49494489349563384452013-02-01T13:10:29.241-06:002013-02-01T13:10:29.241-06:00I think we might end up seeing the same thing that...I think we might end up seeing the same thing that happened with Justice Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court (with Republicans and Democrats switching positions, of course).<br /><br />Cloture vote for Alito was 72-25; the actual vote was 58-42, with 16 Democrats and Chafee (R-RI) voting Aye on Cloture and Nay on the actual nomination.<br /><br />It is highly possible that there are a handful of cloture/don't confirm Republicans (and maybe even the odd Democrat).<br /><br />It is one thing to filibuster federal judges (which the GOP has been doing non-stop since 2009- only five district court judges passed with a non-filibuster proof majority on the last four years). The public does not care strongly about that (though they should).<br /><br />However, a Cabinet nomination is much more visible, and I think there are still a few Republican "establishment" Senators (specially people who are on their last term: Hatch i.e.) who might want to do the cloture/don't confirm schtick.Pedro Soriano Mendiarahttp://labatallaporlacasablanca.blogspot.com.es/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11429072924167557582013-02-01T10:55:57.260-06:002013-02-01T10:55:57.260-06:00Of course, the problem here is that you're rea...Of course, the problem here is that you're really opening yourself up to false positives. <br /><br />I'm not sure there's a better option, but it's problematic.<br />Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.com