In light of Harry Reid’s statements yesterday about filibustering, a reader writes in about the “filibustering” of nominees, and the haranguing about the filibustering of nominees, that regularly goes on in DC:
It seems to me that instead of each party trashing the other when someone holds up a nomination for an earmark, they should simply abolish the ability to do this.
I suppose that could be said of most of how the government works.
They make the rules that allow corruption (illegitimate use of power) and then (surprise!) they follow their own rules.
Yep. Both sides do it, and both sides cry bloody murder when the other side does it. And nobody makes any serious effort to do away with it.
I tried to find a good “history of the filibuster” piece to link for you, but the articles I skimmed were either (1) sketchy and incomplete, (2) biased or (3) both. If I run across a decent piece, I’ll post it here as an update.
Update: From NRO:
Just Hold Still [Robert Costa]
Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is coming under fire today from White House officials for blocking Senate approval of 70 Obama administration nominees for top federal jobs. Shelby’s “blanket hold” is part of a political effort to force presidential action on the Air Force refueling-tanker fight in Alabama. (A $35 billion contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman and Airbus last year to build tankers in Mobile, Ala., only to be voided after Boeing filed a bid protest.) Shelby’s holds are within Senate rules — any senator can place a hold — but a hold on all of an administration’s nominees is relatively rare. Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), for one, has used the tactic in the past:
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is increasing pressure to have one of his aides confirmed to a top post at the federal agency that will decide the Yucca Mountain Project. Reid confirmed Monday that he will put a blanket hold on all of President Bush’s nominees for executive branch positions except for judges and defense appointees.
Then-senator Obama also used holds for political purposes. One senior Republican Senate aide tells National Review Online that “if anyone thinks the issue of temporary holds on federal bureaucrats has political significance they need to take a trip outside the Beltway as soon as they can. Turns out people are more concerned with their own jobs.”
So, to add to what I said before: Both sides do it; both sides cry bloody murder when the other side does it; AND both sides say “yeah, but, They always do it, too” when under scrutiny for doing it.
And then they change the subject, as the “Republican Senate aide” did in that last paragraph up there.
Update 2: Jonah Goldberg chimes in and puts me in good company:
Robert — I’m not sure I get the defense being offered by the unnamed Senate aide. The practice is “rare” but Harry Reid once did it too. Tu quoque and “they’re hypocritical for complaining” arguments will only take the GOP so far, particularly when it requires citing Harry Reid’s bad behavior as a justification for their own.
As for the aide saying “if anyone thinks the issue of temporary holds on federal bureaucrats has political significance they need to take a trip outside the Beltway as soon as they can. Turns out people are more concerned with their own jobs.” He (or she) might be right, but again, that kind of talk sounds like the kind of arrogant, cynical, game-playing that has gotten the Dems in such a mess (and the Republicans before them).
Yep.
