Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]

View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem

1. Sandi Saunders | January 30, 2013 at 8:10 am

   This was a chance to finally move the Senate to actually do their job and Reid blew it, no way around that.
2. John R | January 30, 2013 at 9:09 am

   It was the Dems and Reid, who love to ignore the Constitution, that in 2007 started the concept of the pro forma (Latin for “in name only”) Senate sessions in order to block Pres. Bush from making recess appointments.

   Unlike our Imperial Prez, Bush never challenged the pro forma session with an appointment.

   As I posted last January on this subject, the Executive branch does not have the constitutional power to decide when Congress is or is not in session. That power lies with the co-equal branch of government, the Legislative.

   The basic concept of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government embodied in our Constitution seems to be lost on the liberals.

   The SCOTUS will doubtlessly deliver another smack down for Obama’s abuse of executive power on this one! For now the DC court’s ruling is the law of the land. I am sure the Obama admin. will ignore this ruling though.
3. C. Trejbal | January 30, 2013 at 9:52 am

   @2 I hate being pedantic, but I also hate Latin abuse. “Pro forma” literally translates as “for form” and might loosely translate as “for the sake of form”. “In name only” probably best translates as “nomine tenus.”
4. 89Hoo | January 30, 2013 at 10:11 am

   3 – heh…I actually think you like being pedantic…
5. gdad | January 30, 2013 at 10:12 am

   Look!!! John R is back!!!! Thought you had permanently disappeared after the severe November beatdown administered by Obama.

   Anyway, John R, aren’t you in favor of filibuster reform, or are you one of those who’s against it until the next time Republicans have a majority and then you don;t like the Dems doing it?

   You also forgot to mention that it’s the Repubs who are abusing the system so badly that the Senate no longer functions.
6. Sandi Saunders | January 30, 2013 at 11:01 am

   Words matter, odd how just the other day you were all for that pedantic effort.

   So does the fact that this Congress has abused power in ways that would make former Congresses blush even register? You can call this what it is or you can pretend it is just pro forma, it stinks either way and there needs to be a mechanism to get around obvious and deliberate obstruction. How long has the ATF gone without an appointed leader being confirmed? Whine about “no budget in 4 years” and ignore the reasons why. Typical.
7. 89Hoo | January 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm

   6 – are you talking to me? Have I said anything positive about this Congress? Yes, they have abused their authority, and are derelict in their duty, all at the same time. Inexcusably, criminally so.

   And I’ve never denied being somewhat pedantic. Words DO matter.
8. John R | January 30, 2013 at 1:18 pm

   #6 Sandi, “….the fact that this Congress has abused power in ways that would make former Congresses blush…”

   Could you give some examples of “abused power” by Congress? There were certainly no unconstitutional abuses that I can recall as with the Obama Administration in this case.

   I assume you are referring to the last Congress since this Congress has only been in session a brief time.

   A pro forma session of the Senate has been determined to be Constitutional by the court. The fact that this Administration found it inconvenient is no excuse to ignore the Constitution. Obama was purposely trying to circumvent Congress and got smacked down.

   This is a very big deal since it may nullify over 300 recent rulings of the NLRB, much to the dismay of the liberals.
9. Sandi Saunders | January 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm

   I am not rehashing the truth or the history of the 112th Congress of infamy.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/

   http://www.citizensforethics.org/policy/entry/112th-congress-review-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly

   “Much has been written already about the 112th Congress, most of it negative.“
10. gdad | January 30, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    John R, the real topic here is filibuster reform. Yet you have nothing to say about the Repubs filibustering the senate into uselessness.

    Somebody have a paper bag for John?
11. C. Trejbal | January 30, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    There’s a good piece over at Slate raising many of the same issues as this editorial, but in greater detail.

    Senate democracy—not just Senate Democrats—suffered two significant setbacks last week. One wound was partly self-inflicted. The other was mischief worked by judges. President Obama’s wiliest and most subtle adversary—Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—has just won big, twice.

    First, filibuster reform fizzled. Though Democrats have 55 Senate seats, nothing important can pass without 60 votes, so McConnell retains enormous power to stop whatever Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Dems might favor. Meanwhile, a panel of Republican-appointed judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that President Obama cannot overcome Senate filibusters of his nominees by making executive branch appointments during Senate recesses that take place midsession.
12. Art Hill | January 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    Perhaps Reid realized his party may not always be in the majority.
13. Art Hill | January 30, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    I never would have thought John R. to be a proponent of judicial activism. Welcome back, I hope your wounds have healed.