During his 38 years in the U.S. Senate, Patrick Leahy has spent plenty of time in the minority. So it’s no surprise that, like many senior Democrats, he’s looked warily over the years at proposals to empower the majority at the expense of the minority.
On Thursday, that changed.
Along with 51 other Democrats and independents — including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Leahy voted to curtail the use of the filibuster by a minority faction to block most presidential appointments. The historic rules change means that a simple majority will suffice to confirm nominees to federal district and circuit courts and to the president’s cabinet.
“I believe in using the rules. I don’t believe in abusing them,” Leahy told Seven Days Thursday afternoon. “I have enough experience under both Democratic and Republican leadership to know that you have the rules, but you don’t abuse them.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Leahy : ” look, when the frustration has reached
this level, don’t you think it’s time for people on both sides to sit
down and let’s start working it out?”
Um Pat, I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but instead of sitting down and working it out you dropped the nuclear option on the US Senate. Something no majority has ever done before… why… because they were grown ups who could sit down and work out their differences. This Senate can not. The political landscape is such that Obama made so many enemies by forcing through ObamaCare, without attempt at a bipartisian compromise, strictly on party lines that repercussions were a House majority and Senate minority that returned the favor refusing to compromise with him.
The only way this government runs again collaborately is when Obama leaves office and allows someone to come in that is moderate and willing to compromise to make both sides at least somewhat happy.
Obama to this day continues to refuse to compromise, it is his way or no way… see the shut down, debt default crisis…
There is no leadership in DC, and DC will not be functional again until Obama leaves. I am not a big fan of Billary but she had it right in a recent speech…
“Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, it’s important not to vote for people who proudly say they will never compromise,” said Clinton
That means, Cruz and most of the Tea Party, that means Harry Reid, that means Bernie Sanders, that means Nancy Pelosi….
Clinton predicts a course correction in government and I hope she is right. If we can’t get back to the middle the TWO extremes will surely destroy our country.
I respect Leahy, that’s why this is so hard to take. Here he is just being another political hack. It’s like I caught grandpa looking at porn.
Disagree. Totally. The Republicans said the moment Obama took office that they were going to do everything in their power to frustrate him and make him a one-term President. Since Obama took office they have been the Party of No. The Party of Obstruction. The Party of No Appointments Will Go Through. Obama’s only mistake was that in the first two years, when he had a majority, he tried to work with the Republicans and they bit his hand.
It is perfectly fine for you to disagree with Obama’s poilicies, Jcarter. But to say that he is the cause of the dysfunction in Congress reveals a surprising blind spot in your view.
You can disagree if you want. There were many bills passed prior to the ACA that were passed on a bipartisian basis. After the ACA things decreased rather dramatically.
Consider, there were 17 bills passed into law in roughly a year prior to ObamaCare, with the exception of the Recovery Act most had significant portions of republicans voting for the legislation.
There were 11 passed in the next TWO years…
Its pretty clear where the turning point was. And it’s pretty clear that while some were intent on making Obama’s life miserable from the start, the majority was working across the isle… until the ACA. Then both parties have become the party of NO. How many budgets have the republicans sent to the Senate that Reid hasn’t even allowed a vote on?
Finally, I didn’t say he was the cause of the dysfunction… he certainly has a large share of the blame, but it’s not all his…
What I did say was the ramming through of ObamaCare was responsible, it led to the current landscape. And it did, I mean Mass elected a freaking republican to replace Kennedy just to oppose it. The climate totally shifted as a result and many of the people that were elected… were elected precisely due to ObamaCare.
I think laying the entirety of the blame on the republicans for Congresses dysfunction is at best outright delusional.
Agreeing with Sutton. The Republican response to the ACA is “outright delusional” as are some of its finest members. The only plank in the Republican platform is defeat everyone except big business, by any means possible. The ACA is not a turning point, the Republican melodrama is. It seeks to hamstring the poor, elderly and minorities of the US. But here’s the news: we know it now. As Sutton said, the Democrats and Obama made every effort to compromise until it was obvious that the right wing has a merciless mission.
The statements you make about the gridlock in DC being Obama’s fault because he refuses to compromise, are not rational.
The Republicans simply said “no” to the Affordable Care Act (the very same kind of legislation that their 2012 presidential candidate implemented in Mass.) for reasons that I believe were purely 100% political: oppose anything the President wants. But, whatever the reasons for their opposition, that left Obama with two choices: pass his legislation with only Democrats, or simply abandon the law. Those were his only choices. There was no “failure to compromise”! That accusation is a bald rewriting of the record.
So the President passed a law that is hardly revolutionary, and ever since the Republicans have hated him and obstructed him. You can’t fairly be accused of “not compromising” with people who are unwilling to compromise, whose only position is “no,” That’s silly.
If it applied to legislative changes I would see it as a problem and the decline of a great deliberative body. Since it applies only to appointments, I see it as a way to cut down on needless partisan wrangling. Maybe it will free up a tiny bit of the Senate floor time for something else, like the national debt. One can hope.
Sorry Sutton I will agree to disagree with you. The right did not oppose the ACA for purely political reasons. They opposed the ACA because it pretty much goes against their platform, in many of their districts most people don’t want it, and the opposed it because its just a bad law and a bad plan.
And those weren’t his only choices, to drop it or force it through. Those are the only choices for a bully or an idiot. There is always a compromise that can be made… Obama, Reid and the Tea Party all are destroying this country because they believe precisely as you do that there are only absolute choices yes or no, that there is no compromise and they don’t need to because they can bully their way through it. Extremists have never served this country well and they are now destroying it…
And now it will be worse, that majority party will bully they way through whatever the want to and you can bet your arse that few republicans will bother to try and compromise with their counterparts should they regain a majority. The senate has largely acted more like grown -ups then the House, but that all just changed over a few DC judicial appointments. Just remember, you reap what you sow… the republicans are learning that now with the Tea Party… what looked like a gift has turned into a nightmare… the Dems are going to find out the same thing. The no compromising we are going to do this with or without you attitude will come back to bite them… hard.
Today it applies to appointments, you can bet that it in the near future it will apply legislative changes. A precedent has been set, when the minority party obstructes the majority party, they will change the rules to remove the obstruction.
Obama and the Democrats tried to compromise on the ACA how?
It is bitter to watch our two squabbling elites fighting over political spoils and near term gain. True statesmen would recognize that they are temporary caretakers of our civilization and their conduct and planning should reflect that we intend to hand it down to our descendants.
Instead it looks like we’d better teach our kids archery and sword fighting to get them ready for Thunderdome.
Blocking Presidential agency appointments — not just judges, mind you, but the President’s own Executive Branch agency heads, deputies, etc. — out of pure spite, is atrocious and not to be tolerated. These nominees aren’t baby-killers or criminals. They are qualified. The ONLY reason their appointments have been blocked is because the President is a Democrat. Period. End of story. This brand of Republicans doesn’t believe in abiding by the results of elections.
Its not the end of the story. And you are entirely incorrect, the republicans don’t block the presidents nominees because he is a democrat, that’s a lazy and disengenious cop out… they block OBAMAs nominees because they don’t like him …Obama as a person …and they don’t have any faith in him.
Do you believe that had Billary won the election things would be the same as they are today? I do not.
You need to lay off the partisan blame game here. It’s not the left they hate …. its Obama.
Clinton, did things differently and both he and the country were rewarded. Obama set a much different tone, and he gets to bear the fruits of his labor.
“they block OBAMAs nominees because they don’t like him …Obama as a person …and they don’t have any faith in him. “
That is NOT a legitimate reason to block a President from filling open positions in his administration!!! That is political abuse.
It’s not a legit reason I agree.
Ideally you are absolutely correct. Realistically Obama made his bed and now he has to lie in it. The people of this country were stupid to vote him back in and think anything was going to be different.
You get what you deserve. The republicans have been getting hammered for being the party of “no.” They likely would have regained the Senate if it wasn’t for that.
Obama is also getting what he deserves, he made political enemies and now he wants them to play nice… sorry chief thats not the way it works.
Reid, will get his as well, you can count on that…
“Obama is getting what he deserves”
What he deserves? Deserves for what? For winning the 2008 election? For beating McCain? For being a moderate? For proposing a law that says everyone must have insurance — private insurance, just like Romney imposed on Massachusetts? For that he “deserves” to be abused?
Oh, I get it. He’s getting what he “deserves” because he’s not white.
Shame.
Maybe, and I’m sure the Democrats will whine about it if it happens. Regardless, there was nothing really stopping either party from eliminating the filibuster before. There is something incongruent about having a rule effectively calling for 60% approval to pass legislation, but allowing that procedure to be eliminated by simple majority.
If only they could have filibustered the filibuster reform.
I explained why he is getting what he deserves, if you want to ignore the explanation I gave and start insinuating people are racist then good day to you.
It seemed to me that by and large I enjoyed conversing with you on this board and for the most part you could engage in a productive conversation. I’m sorry that has ended and you feel the need to resort to such sorry tactics.
I didn’t say you were a racist. But I believe there is a racist element in the hatred toward him on the Right.
And, no, in my view you did not “explain” why the President got what he “deserves.” All you explained is the obvious: that he passed a piece of legislation that the minority party doesn’t like. BFD. It’s been happening for 200 years by both sides. Get over it. It does not warrant the abuse and obstruction this President — this in actuality moderate President — has been subjected to.