Reid and Obama’s dangerous nuclear option

The Democrats’ recent action in the Senate hurts bipartisanship and politicizes the courts. Photo: Harry Reid / Associated Press

WASHINGTON, November 25, 2013 —  On election night, 2008, newly-elected President Barack Obama remarked, “Tonight, you voted for action, not politics as usual.”

Six years later, this is one more broken promise on a growing list.


SEE RELATED: Iran deal: Two nuclear options in less than a week for Obama


The Senate Democrats last week engaged in the worst kind of politics, the type that says if you don’t agree with us, we don’t care about you. In an unprecedented move, they used the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Presidential nominees for most federal judicial positions will no longer require 60 votes to proceed. Instead, a simple majority is all that is needed to move to a confirmation vote. Specifically, these actions came as the president was trying to appoint three new judges to the court that reviews most of the government’s regulations, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This means the majority party will have the power to ram through any appointments they wish, without considering the other side’s objections. This almost entirely eliminates the incentive for choosing nominees who are acceptable to both parties, allowing the courts to become more politicized.

The Democrats’ real motivations were hidden behind a facade of pragmatism. Claiming the courts are overburdened, the Democrats argued that more judges were needed to increase efficiency in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.


SEE RELATED: Nuclear games: Harry Reid unites the GOP, declares war


But the Wall Street Journal effectively exposes this flimsy rhetoric, reporting, “For the 12-months ending in September, the D.C. Circuit had 149 appeals filed per active judge. By comparison, the 11th Circuit had 778 appeals filed per active judge for the same period.” The Journal argues that Democrats are simply engaging in a “political power play” by packing “the most underworked appellate circuit in the country.”

Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid and supported by President Obama, claim that Republicans’ obstructionism is adequate cause for suppression of minority rights. But the Republicans are right to obstruct unnecessary judge appointments if the D.C. Circuit does not really need them.

Furthermore, the nuclear option is a haughty assertion of raw power, telling those who disagree that their opinions are not valuable. It’s a continuation of the mentality of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. When the first stimulus bill was passed with no Republican votes in 2009, Republicans offered to make the bill a bipartisan effort by providing their input as well.

Emanuel’s response was to completely ostracize Republicans, claiming their involvement was worthless. “We have the votes,” he said, following that comment with an expletive directed toward Republicans.


SEE RELATED: History of Nuclear decisions: Fallout from Senate Dems going ‘nuclear’


This total marginalization of dissenting views has continued throughout the entire Obama presidency: during the healthcare debates, fiscal cliff negotiations, and now presidential appointments.

Eight years ago, on the Senate floor in 2005, Senator Barack Obama remarked, “What (the American people) don’t expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.”

President Obama should listen to Senator Obama. The Senate Democrats’ move last week was a dangerous blow to bipartisanship and the rights of the minority.


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Consider Again
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga is currently studying at Baylor University, pursuing three business majors in Economics, Finance, and Business Fellows with minors in mathematics and political science. Although originally from the Chicago area, he is a Texas resident. Danny writes a political blog called Consider Again located at consideragain.com and is also syndicated at The College Conservative, RedState, PolicyMic, and the Baylor Lariat.


Follow him on Twitter or Google+

Contact Danny Huizinga

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus