I am so tired of Republicans and
their media calling Democratic senators "obstructionists."
Let's turn the tables: how about Reid and his caucus as the patriots and Bush as the obstructionist.
I think a very reasonable argument can be made, taking nothing more than the Bolton nomination as an example:
Republicans charge that we are being "unfair" and "obstructionist" by not confirming Bolton, charging, as they did in the filibuster debate, that we are subverting the Constitution.
So, at their invitation, let's look at the Constitution.
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments
Interesting when you read the actual text, isn't it?
Let's break down the sentence on nominations. The word "by" in the clause "by and with the Advice and Consent" would seem to imply a prospective action, meaning the President would seek out "advice and consent" prior to making a nomination--only then would the "with," that being the "consent" on the floor of the Senate, take place. As such, is not Bush subverting the Constitution, himself being the "obstructionist" who refuses to seek "advice and consent?"
Moreover, nothing in the Constitution speaks of a simple majority to confirm a nominee--indeed it could be argued that the "advice and consent" clause mandates unanimity. And while this would be an overwhelming burden for even the most talented, capable, and benign of nominees, a nominee who did reach the floor by way of the constitutionally mandated "advice and consent" would be very likely to come close, surely eclipsing both a 50 vote majority and even a 60 member cloture vote.
So, I'll ask again: who is being the Obstructionist and refusing to comply with the Constitution--instead content to usher unacceptable after unacceptable nominee before the Senate--and who is being the Patriot, preserving Constitution, the country, and right of the minority?
It's time to change the debate and change some minds...