Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
H/t to the Huffington Post for this video mashup. What our Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, is objecting to in this video are non-controversial executive appointees to federal departments, agencies, military posts, etc. and judicial nominees who are on the "unanimous consent" calendar, meaning that the nominees have already been approved by committee votes.
"Unanimous consent" dispenses with time-consuming and unnecessary roll call votes. The only reason for objection here is the GOP's partisan political strategy of obstruction – just say "no" to everything. Notice how Jon Kyl appears to relish his role.
The GOP has entirely abandoned any notion of being the "loyal opposition." This is unprecedented. Do not complain to me about how government does not work when we have one political party devoted to the idea of proving that government doesn't work through their own gross incompetence when they are in the majority, and their active undermining of government when they are in the minority. This comes perilously close to sedition.
UPDATE: Laura Rozen at Politico has more about the motivations of our Senator Obstruction. Kyl objects to votes that would reveal secret holds:
Eighty other nominees are being held in secret, and as NPR reports, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has objected to a call for votes on nominees that would reveal which Senator has a secret hold:
As the week began, 99 of Obama's executive and judicial branch nominees were stalled by holds, in some cases for more than a year. …
"It is the worst ever," said Paul Light, a presidential nominations expert at New York University.
He said dragging out confirmations is nothing new, and both Democrats and Republicans have done it. But he said the current delays are unprecedented, and word has spread that the nomination ordeal is not worth it. …."It has just become a very ugly process, very dispiriting." ….
As Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) pointed out, most senators won't acknowledge having put holds on nominees. …
McCaskill said 80 or so nominees remain stalled by secret holds, and she's trying to reveal the holds' authors by demanding votes on those nominees.
No. 2 Senate Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona objected to McCaskill's request for votes. He did so on behalf of colleagues whose names he did not reveal.
"I am not defending a lot of holds," Kyl said.
When asked if he thought holds had gotten excessive, Kyl answered, "They might well be; I don't know."
"I don't know much, but I know how to obstruct…"
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the U.S. Senate Glossary of References, for your remedial education:
unanimous consent – A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.
Methinks you really don’t understand the concept of unanimous consent.
http://www.google.com/search?q=definition+consent