What Happened to the Senate’s ‘60-Vote Requirement’?
by Glenn Greenwald
Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they “tried”), the excuse they gave was that they “need 60 votes in the Senate” in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general “60-vote requirement” for everything.
How, then, can this be explained?
The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.
The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent opposed him.
Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey’s confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey’s confirmation — more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn’t they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?
Numerous Senate Democrats delivered dramatic speeches from the floor as to why Mukasey’s confirmation would be so devastating to the country. The Washington Post said the “vote came after more than four hours of impassioned floor debate.”
“Torture should not be what America stands for . . . I do not vote to allow torture,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. Russ Feingold said: “we need an attorney general who will tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. And on that fundamental qualification for this office Judge Mukasey falls short.” Feingold added: “If Judge Mukasey won’t say the simple truth — that this barbaric practice is torture — how can we count on him to stand up to the White House on other issues?”
Wow — it sounds as though there was really a lot at stake in this vote.
So why would 44 Democratic Senators make a flamboyant showing of opposing confirmation without actually doing what they could to prevent it? Is it that a filibuster was not possible because a large number of these Democratic Senators were willing to symbolically oppose confirmation so they could say they did — by casting meaningless votes in opposition knowing that confirmation was guaranteed — but were unwilling to demonstrate the sincerity of their claimed beliefs by acting on them?
more...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/09/5112/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
