 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
September 17, 2009
THOMAS PEREZ DESERVES A VOTE.... Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the paralysis that too often grips Congress is the absurd nominating process. It's become entirely routine for qualified nominees who enjoy more than enough support to be confirmed to wait for floor votes, indefinitely, for parochial, often ridiculous, reasons. John McHugh's nomination to be Secretary of the Army was held up because Kansas' Republican senators didn't want certain detainees locked up at Fort Leavenworth. Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) put a hold on an EPA nominee, not because he was unqualified, but because Voinovich wanted a new report from the agency on the costs associated with cap and trade. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) put a hold on an Interior Department nominee because Bennett had questions about oil and gas leases in Utah. OLC nominee Dawn Johnsen has been waiting patiently -- for eight months. Thomas Perez, meanwhile, is the president's choice to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which was gutted during Bush's terms. Perez's qualifications are not in question -- Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights called Perez "arguably the most qualified candidate ever nominated" -- but he has nevertheless been waiting for six months for the Senate to confirm him. Adam Serwer reports on the problem.
Sessions seems to be at the center of the delays. Because Perez once lamented the "long history of xenophobes who oppose immigration," the Alabama Republican has accused Perez of denigrating "those who stand for a lawful system of immigration and immigration enforcement." And so, Perez waits (and waits) for a simple vote to occur. In the meantime, the administration's plan to get the Civil Rights Division back on track is partially on hold. As the legal director of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights told Adam, "It's hard to implement a strategy for how the division's going to operate without the head of the division there. There are a lot of decisions that aren't being made because they're waiting for the head person to come in." —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
Comments
This is just more of the republican's plan to do anything they can to stop Obama from governing the country. What a bunch of creeps. Posted by: fourlegsgood on September 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINKSimple. Reid should ignore the holds. I believe there is precedent for doing so. Posted by: doubtful on September 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINKObama should "go Bush" on them, if you'll pardon the expression. Make a bunch of recess appointments the next time Congress takes a break. Why didn't Perez receive a recess appointment during August? Would've been easy enough. Posted by: David on September 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINKSo one Senator can hold up a nomination forever? There's no way around this? Combined with the Baucus debacle, the U.S. Senate is proving to be the most dysfunctional organization, and I use that term loosely, in the history of democracy. Posted by: Allan Snyder on September 17, 2009 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINKThere's no way the Republicans would stand for indefinite holds on their nominees. There must be some way around this. The Republicans imposed rules to marginalize the Democrats as a minority party...and now that they are the minority party themselves, they still seem to have the rules in their favor. The Democrats are the majority. They can change rules, can't they? The Republicans managed to change them, why can't the Democrats? This is obstructionist bullshit. It needs to stop. Posted by: ajaye on September 17, 2009 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINKThere must be some way around this. -ajaye There's nothing to find their way around, really. There is no such thing as a 'hold' in the Senate rules or any of their governing documents. Even on the Senate's website, they describe it as: An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure. They only person obstructing anything here is Harry Reid, who, if you followed the link I provide in my previous comment, you will find had no problem ignoring a hold place on the FISA bill by Senator Dodd, a fellow party and caucus member. Posted by: doubtful on September 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKI would love to see all the nominees who are being held up appear with Obama on the steps outside the Senate with a speech in front of the network cameras. Posted by: gwcole on September 17, 2009 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINKGive me a break, no one can make a decision or a game plan ? That is more ridiculous then the nomination getting held up. So no boss, everyone should just go home ? Someone is acting leader over there and if they aren't, then we need different staff. Let's move along, if we are trying to blame R's for Obama's inability to lead we are as pathetic as they make us out to be. It would be nice if one time the D's actually had some sort of game plan BEFORE the R's pulled their shenanigans. I am so sick of playing defense. Posted by: ScottW on September 17, 2009 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINKWade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights called Perez "arguably the most qualified candidate ever nominated" This sounds like something a Republican would say... except, perhaps, they'd leave off the 'arguably' part. This language always makes me cringe, regardless of who uses it. Oh, and while we're on the subject, I'm quite sure he's simultaneously the 'most racist candidate ever nominated'. Just predictin'. Posted by: JTK on September 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKdoubtful has this exactly right. Harry Reid is under no obligation to honor any of these prolonged holds and is doing so of his own choice. So this is just another reason that Reid's defeat in the next election would be a worthwhile short-term sacrifice. Posted by: jeri on September 17, 2009 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKThe Repubs indulge in holding up the Nation's business, and not only Mr. Perez: http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/09/david-weigel-attacks-on-sunstein-frustrate-conservative-fans.html Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein would be nominated to run the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein is a moderately libertarian/conservative, and they still hold him up - in some cases, Rs did it because he was "opposed to hunting." One hold hasn't the name released, such secrecy shouldn't be allowed. Posted by: Neil B ♪ on September 17, 2009 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKWhat evidence is there that Harry Reid is not a Republican? Posted by: freelunch on September 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKPost a comment
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
