"Enormously disappointing" indeed

[drwex]

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/07/24/dont-send-summers-to-the-fed/

Felix Salmon well and truly nails it here on why Larry Summers ought not to be Fed Chair (too numerous to list) and why we might get stuck with him anyway (because friend).

I wish I had enough respect left for Obama to believe he'd pick the better candidate over the friend, but I do not.

And while I'm on the subject of enormously disappointing: Dear Senator Reid, stop F'ing with the filibuster.

Did you miss what went on in Texas? I'll happily give you some YouTube links. If ever there was a moment to demonstrate that a filibuster is an important and powerful weapon for a minority to redress its sense of being steamrollered that was is. Right now your party is in control of the Senate but some day that might not be true and fergodssakes can you please govern now with the notion that you're setting rules for all who follow including your future minority selves.

I would support a rules change disallowing filibusters of Presidential appointees. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint certain officials (including douchecanoes like Summers) but the Senate's power is limited to advise and consent. Not block forever. And not "refuse to confirm anyone regardless of qualification just because we don't like the agency they're nominated to." Sixty or ninety days followed by a mandatory up or down vote should be sufficient. Blocking appointees indefinitely is likely unconstitutional.

I would rather have the talking filibuster back (essentially the Jeff Merkley proposal). See Wendy Davis. See Bernie Sanders. Senators who (literally) phone it in while eating hors d'oeuvres with lobbyists should not be allowed to block things. And if you are making your own side miserable because they have to be present to support your filibuster, so be it. Requiring a supermajority to get anything done is stupid. But so is threatening a nuclear option of removing the filibuster just because the people using it right now are people you don't like.

Comments

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree, although I'd be up for disallowing filibuster before things ever even get out of committee.

I very much want the talkign filibuster back. This constant filibuster situation is ridiculous.

[dcltdw]

The thing about requiring supermajorities in the US is that it strikes me as having all the bad parts of a parliamentary system with none of the good parts. That said, I totally appreciate your comments about political cycles. Certainly rolling back to "your filibusters require effort" would be a good step that doesn't seem too extreme, which both the Do Nothing and Nuclear Option strike me as.

[ckd]

I'm with you on the talking filibuster. If it's important enough to block, it's important enough to actually have to work at it.