Following the Senate vote this week known as the nuclear option, the Senate only needs a simple majority to override a filibuster. Although this is a total power grab by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and goes against the long standing rules of the Senate, the New York Times editorial board seems to think that this restores democracy to the Senate.
The editorial board writes,
“For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.”
Hmmm. Partisan much? But that’s not all, they continue:
“Given the extreme degree of Republican obstruction during the Obama administration, the Democrats had little choice but to change the filibuster rule. As Mr. Reid noted on the floor, half of all filibusters waged against nominations in Senate history have occurred since Mr. Obama was elected. Twenty of his district court nominees were filibustered; only three such filibusters took place before he took office. There has also been a record-setting amount of delay in approving the president’s choices for cabinet positions and federal agency posts, even when no objections have been raised about a nominee’s qualifications.”
Recommended
They claim that actions taken by the Senate Democrats was necessary in order to return the Senate back into a functioning body. Yeah, a functioning body that can’t operate the way it’s supposed. Yes, a body that functions only in the way they want it to. In this vote, which back in 2005 Reid called it an abuse of power, the Senate Democrat have proven their lack of respect for the American people and the way they vote.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member