FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Why All Americans Should Thank Sen. Shelby
Senator Pork Barrel
By Ron Elving NPR
Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Richard Shelby, the senior Republican senator from Alabama, and the rest of the Senate should be furious at him.
The reason is simple. Shelby has overstepped the usual bounds of caution and produced an act of senatorial arrogance so breathtaking that the country just might notice. And if the country actually knew that such shenanigans were possible, the country would be amazed and, one would hope, perturbed.
That is why 99 other senators should be short of breath, too. Because if Shelby gets noticed with this extreme version of business as usual, other senators conducting smaller-scale hostage operations on similarly selfish impulses may get noticed, too.
Shelby has placed a blanket “hold” on 70 nominations pending before the Senate, nominations for federal agency jobs and seats on the federal bench. Does he have a case against each and every one of the 70? No, he isn’t really talking about any of them.
His problem has to do with a couple of government contracts he wants to see benefit his home state of Alabama. To date, these Shelby “earmarks” have not come to pass, and the senator wants to change that. He is tired of being stiffed. He wants to force the Senate and the Obama administration to cede to his preferences for the granting of these contracts.
The tactic works by inducing pain. It slows or disrupts the work of literally dozens of federal agencies and courts. It interferes with the normal execution of the functions we all pay taxes to support. But this is not the goal; it is merely pressure, a means to an end.
Placing a hold on a bill or appointment has another purpose. It gives any senator leverage over the White House and the rest of the Senate.
In this case, it serves notice that until Richard Shelby has been satisfied, nothing on the Senate agenda will be more important than satisfying Richard Shelby.
More at NPR
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=14586
Posted by Bob Higgins on Feb 8 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Legislation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Sent into Veterans Today via email from Iowa candidate for U.S. Senate
STATEMENT BY BOB KRAUSE
Democratic Candidate, United States Senate
Statement by U. S. Senate candidate Bob Krause on the ‘Nuclear Option’ and Senator Shelby’s Block on Appointees
“With the advice and consent of the Senate, the President may appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise described in the Constitution.”
–Article 2: Executive Power, United States Constitution
Bob Krause, Democratic Candidate for U. S. Senate, today [Feb. 8th] called on the Democratic senators in the United States Senate to use the so-called “nuclear option” in the battle with Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama over his hold on all Obama Administration appointees. Senator Shelby reportedly put on the holds recently due to a local matter affecting a campaign donor — an aircraft contractor in Alabama — as a negotiating tactic.
Krause’s statement in its entirely follows:
“In 2005, when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened use of the “nuclear option” to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush in response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. This was stopped by an agreement among key Democrats and Republicans in order to maintain the 60 vote precedent on court appointees.
“In the “nuclear option,” 51 votes in the Senate can theoretically end a filibuster on nominees, but the technique has never been used. In the “nuclear option,” it can be achieved by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional. This can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a super-majority of 60 senators. The procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since.
“Despite the potential consequences, and in spite of partisan differences, I believe the Republicans who advocated the “nuclear option” in 2005 were right. Even when I disagree, I do not think that it is right for a minority to over-rule the majority, as has been done in the United States Senate in recent years. We have to create a decision where those who are in power can govern — no matter to which party they belong.
“We cannot criticize President Obama for not governing decisively if we deny him the appointments he needs to run his administration. If we are to maintain a democracy, we have to allow the winner of the election to govern, regardless of whether the winner is a Democrat or a Republican.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, February 8, 2010
Contact: Keith Dinsmore
573-230-5360
keith@krauseforiowa.com
I’m not in favor of what Shelby is doing, but he’s using the Senate’s own rules to block those nominations.
If the Senate was truly concerned about what Shelby was doing, they’d get rid of that noxious point of procedure, but they won’t.
Thank you Lese. Well said. Senators (and Congresspeople) on all sides of the aisle are well aware that what is good for the goose may well be good for the gander somewhere down the road. If Krause ever manages to make it to the Senate (I have serious doubts, but who knows besides the ashkenazi oligarchs and their minions) he isn’t going to want to make waves to change anything.
WOW. that is really selfish of him…
thanks for this info!