TPM: Why the Filibuster Change is Fantastic News for Obama.

[backscatter712]

Not that it's anything we haven't already covered, but it never hurts to re-iterate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/filibuster-reform-obama-second-term

Why The Filibuster Change Is Fantastic News For Obama

SAHIL KAPUR – NOVEMBER 22, 2013, 11:30 AM EST

The Senate's historic "nuclear option" vote Thursday to end the filibuster for executive nominees and most judicial nominees is excellent news for President Barack Obama.

Obama's second-term agenda largely runs through the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which often has the final word on matters of White House and executive branch authority. That's the strongest tool Obama has to still get things done, because as long as Republicans control the House, his legislative agenda isn't going anywhere. The Senate rules change clears a path for the president to confirm his three stalled nominees to vacancies on the conservative-leaning court, and make it less hostile to his executive actions.

"There will be more judges on the court now who will follow the Constitution and laws as written, rather than reach ideologically-driven results," said Judith Schaeffer, the vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal advocacy group. "The President's executive actions and his legislative accomplishments will be in good hands with judges who follow the law."

The D.C. Circuit has been the GOP's most potent weapon against Obama's use of executive power, as it has overturned a slew of his regulations on health care, financial reform, environmental protection, labor rules and recess appointments. Most recently, a three-judge panel on the court struck down Obamacare's contraception mandate.

The federal court system is short by dozens of judges, because of long-term right-wing filibustering and refusing to fill empty seats. Furthermore, because the Senate Democrats can push through judges at will, we've just changed flipped the DC Circuit Court from right-wing lunacy to 7-4 majority progressive sanity. Other courts will see similar changes.

Also, Obama can fill lots of empty posts in the Executive Branch, and he can now fire bad-performers without worrying about yet another Senate confirmation fight that's as fun as a root canal.

This is a HUGE victory. Watching the GOP in maximum butthurt has never been sweeter!

[Laelth]

1. It is a big deal. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[demwing]

8. Its a big fucking deal

[Cha]

2. thanks backscatter

[kentuck]

3. kick

and rec

[DJ13]

5. This should have happened in the midst of the ACA negotiations

If I remember correctly, there were a slim majority that would have voted for a public option, but not enough to meet the 60 votes needed back then.

A missed opportunity.

[Tx4obama]

9. The rule change does not affect legislation - only admin and judicial nominations. n/t

[DJ13]

12. This vote, you're right

But who's to say a nuke vote in 09 couldnt have been broader in scope.

[OregonBlue]

6. I'm not so sure about this. I read yesterday that the GOP can just boycott the judiciary committee

meetings and refuse to constitute a quorum and no one nominees will make it out of that committee. Thankfully, the D.C. Court of Appeals nominees have already been voted out of committee so Harry Reid can bring them before the Senate for an up or down vote.

[jeff47]

7. That delays the vote about 2 days.

The senate leadership can discharge anything, including a nomination, from the relevant committee and then have the full Senate vote. The minority can object, but that can only stop things until the next executive session. Which can be the next day.

So day 1, Republicans don't show up to Judiciary Committee.
Day 2, Reid attempts to yank the nomination back from the committee. A Republican objects.
Day 3, the yank happens and a vote is scheduled.

[Tx4obama]

10. One thing is still in place: 'Blue Slips'

If one of the two senators from the nominees state refuses to turn in their blue slip then a nominee wouldn't get their hearing, right?

I doubt that the full senate would vote on someone that has not had a hearing.

Only the cloture rule has changed is what I've heard so far.

[jeff47]

11. Sorta

My understanding is blue slips and secret holds really aren't in the rules - after all, Republicans did not honor blue slips the last time they had the majority.

As for the full Senate voting without a hearing, well if the Republicans force the issue, the Democrats will respond. If that means no hearing, then that means no hearing.

[Tx4obama]

13. In 2011 the Senate ended the practice of secret holds (vote 92-4)

Old DU OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4713055

[OregonBlue]

15. Thanks. I didn't know that and it's a relief to know they can't just refuse to vote someone out of

committee. Otherwise they certainly would.

[backscatter712]

14. IIRC, Reid can discharge the nominations from the Committee,

and send them straight to the Senate floor. Won't obstruct for very long.