 |
| Harry Reid and Elena Kagan (Image via Wikipedia) |
Read related » Nebraska's Nelson Becomes First Democrat to Oppose Kagan for Supreme Court
[Reading this related article in its entirety is recommended.]
“Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska said he will vote against confirming Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, becoming the first in his party to announce opposition. Also today, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said he will vote for President Barack Obama’s nominee, the fifth Republican to do so. Nelson said he had heard “concerns” from people in Nebraska about Kagan.”
— By Laura Litvan - Jul 30, 2010 (bloomberg.com)
Just in case you were absent when elementary procedures in the U.S. Senate were covered in your high school civics class, a super majority of 60 votes is required to allow the full Senate to consider any legislation prior to a so-called "up or down" final vote. Given that 59 of the 100 Senators are currently Democrats, and that 5 Republicans have announced their intention to support President Obama's Supreme-Court nominee, Elena Kagan, her confirmation as Associate Justice had already been assured.
Moreover, given the addition of the support from 5 Republicans, and assuming everyone in the Senate can handle simple addition and subtraction, the Democrats know that they have a surplus of 4 votes beyond the necessary 60 for confirmation. For the sake of political efficiency, such surplus must not be wasted. As Jack Kennedy related it after his narrow presidential victory in 1960, his dad, Joe Kennedy (an Irish Catholic who was, nevertheless, very "clever with money") had told him, “Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide”.
It is abundantly clear to the Senate's Majority Leader what he should do with such bounty — hand out permissions to 4 Democrat Senators to vote against confirmation. So far, one of the recipients of Harry Reid's largess is Nebraska's Nelson, who, if memory serves, sold his support of Obamacare for his State's exemption from certain Medicaid obligations worth many megabucks (if not gigabucks). This gives the recipient cover from the ire of his constituents: Nelson was quoted as saying, "Her [Kagan's] lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded".
Mind you, this sort of thing is standard procedure regardless of which party has the majority. My purpose is merely to point out what many people have already figured out for themselves, but which, unfortunately, many have not.
Appearances count for much more than principled action among politicians. On occasion, principled action prevails, but such occasions are rare.
Post 1,371 It's the "appearance of advice and consent" that matters most
No comments:
Post a Comment