I gotta go with Rick on this one. There is a salient difference between talking smack and actually implementing the smack. It's kinda like in the law. You actually have to commit a crime before being charged with that crime.
I have to disagree about nominations. The Constitution does not state when the Senate has to deal with a nominee, only that it does. All the arguments about timing are irrelevant. We can by induction find no justices are just as good as 9. (If 8 justices are ok then why not 7? and if 7 is ok why not 6? etc).
The rule should be simple ... like when a president nominates a justice, the Senate should take it up ... no matter when. We don't have government when it is only convenient, but because it is necessary. Act like it.
I agree about Sen Reid. Frustration should not have been the guiding force behind his decision to change the rules. If Republicans did not want to compromise, the people to convince it is a problem is the electorate.
About Reid's sequestration of bills is not accurate. While it is true he did table some bills, the practice had been ongoing for years. The question is the number of bills. I think most people who have analyzed this have found the actual number was far smaller than the 300 you mention. The padding came from comments from a Senator about many proposals etc which had not been submitted for consideration. Here is an example of why a majority leader may want to table a bill ... suppose a bill from opposing party came through wanting to eliminate tax revenues. Clearly the bill would not go far, so why consume tie with a bill which goes no where. One could make the same argument about minority PARTISAN bills. By partisan I mean bills which promote opposing minority party agendas. Not much chance of going far, so why waste time. The problem is one party could easily confuse PARTISAN bills with bills proposed by the opposing party which may have bipartisan support.
Last edited by rporter314; 12/07/2009:26 PM.
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty