[Update: Paul was ultimately satisfied while Leahy (D) was not.]
Paul's "speaking filibuster" of the Brennan nomination, a nomination that received a lopsided endorsement in committee, is a principled means of using that device. He is on the floor, making his case, with help from some other conservatives though not all of them likely to be as concerned with executive power if a Republican was in the White House. If we are going to have some misguided party members in the legislature, at least let's make them somewhat principled and interesting about it. Paul fits the bill. It would be so charming if Ashley Judd, who some deem a long-shot but trollish comments only suggest the right is really concerned, was the other senator from Kentucky. Some two-some!
The nomination as a whole, which at some point will be confirmed probably, helped to bring some sunlight to the drone program. In fact, Rachel Maddow noted last night that there is some implication that drones will be more of a military matter -- as it should be. I do wish there was someone other than Rand Paul out there doing this sort of thing, joined by the likes of Ted "I have some names in my pocket" Cruz and so on. It's better than two of the three stooges (they are seeking a third) Graham/McCain using it again to bring up Libya. Still. Talking earlier, e.g., how he doesn't expect there to be "due process" during "wartime," underlines the confusion. Is he not aware of Hamdi v. U.S.?
Meanwhile, there is various talk about the less principled type of filibuster, especially after "only" 51 senators voted for Caitlin Halligan, far from a "Goodwin Liu" type for D.C. Circuit. The "extraordinary circumstance" for the remaining "Gang of 14" Republicans must be "Obama nominated." Talking Posts Memo has a few discussions about some peeved off Dems, some making noises about restarting filibuster reform, even you know, though it isn't the beginning of the session (or the first legislative day or whatever via parliamentary magic). When Durbin makes noises about how upset he is, doesn't impress me much -- actually DO something. It is not just "Harry" Reid's fault.
Anyway, this is a lot better than the budget theater going on.
The filibuster has been part of parliamentary strategy in this country for over a hundred and fifty years. Now, the reason we weren't sweating Stackhouse is that Stackhouse isn't someone you sweat. He's been around forever, but he has little influence, little power, and few friends. So, Dad would want me to tell you where the word 'filibuster' comes from. It's from the Dutch "vrijbuiter," which translated literally means "freebooter." But what they meant was, "buccaneer."
-- Josh (West Wing)Jack Goldsmith, though his gratuitous shot at AG Holder is not appreciated, has some good things to say about Sen. Paul's filibuster and concerns about drone usage and other "principled concerns about the implications of the endless “war on terrorism,” not just at home." This includes various confused and downright wrong statements he is making along the way, statements on par really with various ones out there.
Paul's "speaking filibuster" of the Brennan nomination, a nomination that received a lopsided endorsement in committee, is a principled means of using that device. He is on the floor, making his case, with help from some other conservatives though not all of them likely to be as concerned with executive power if a Republican was in the White House. If we are going to have some misguided party members in the legislature, at least let's make them somewhat principled and interesting about it. Paul fits the bill. It would be so charming if Ashley Judd, who some deem a long-shot but trollish comments only suggest the right is really concerned, was the other senator from Kentucky. Some two-some!
The nomination as a whole, which at some point will be confirmed probably, helped to bring some sunlight to the drone program. In fact, Rachel Maddow noted last night that there is some implication that drones will be more of a military matter -- as it should be. I do wish there was someone other than Rand Paul out there doing this sort of thing, joined by the likes of Ted "I have some names in my pocket" Cruz and so on. It's better than two of the three stooges (they are seeking a third) Graham/McCain using it again to bring up Libya. Still. Talking earlier, e.g., how he doesn't expect there to be "due process" during "wartime," underlines the confusion. Is he not aware of Hamdi v. U.S.?
Meanwhile, there is various talk about the less principled type of filibuster, especially after "only" 51 senators voted for Caitlin Halligan, far from a "Goodwin Liu" type for D.C. Circuit. The "extraordinary circumstance" for the remaining "Gang of 14" Republicans must be "Obama nominated." Talking Posts Memo has a few discussions about some peeved off Dems, some making noises about restarting filibuster reform, even you know, though it isn't the beginning of the session (or the first legislative day or whatever via parliamentary magic). When Durbin makes noises about how upset he is, doesn't impress me much -- actually DO something. It is not just "Harry" Reid's fault.
Anyway, this is a lot better than the budget theater going on.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!