The Sanders Hold On The Bernanke Renomination

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 09:28:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In celebrating Senator Bernie Sanders' hold of the renomination of Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman, the bloggers at Open Left are not explaining what makes the Sanders' hold something to celebrate but the Republican hold on other Obama nominations outrageous obstructionism.

Setting aside how you feel about the President's nominees (Yea! Dawn Johnsen, Boo! Bernanke), there is a principled reason why Sanders' hold can be applauded while the Republican hold on Administration posts is unacceptable obstructionism. Posts like Fed Chairman or judicial appointments are independent and extend well beyond the term of a Presidency. Posts like head of the OLC (the post for which Johnsen is nominated) are, at the most, for the duration of a particular Presidential term. In short, a President should have a free hand to choose who will serve in his Administration. He should NOT have a free hand to choose who will sit on the Supreme Court or on bodies that act independently, like the Fed (where member have 10 year terms.) More . . .

I've made this argument in the past (during the nuclear option days of 2005). I thought the Republicans arguing for the nuclear option for judicial nomination have it exactly backwards. It is nominations like the Supreme Court where the filibuster is justified. It is Administration positions that should not be subject to holds and filibusters - a President elected by the people should have the right to staff his Administration as he sees fit. When his Administration ends, these appointees will be gone too, if the next President so chooses.

Supreme Court justices last a lifetime. The Senate has every right to exert its influence regarding who will fill such posts.

Speaking for me only

< The Policy Argument For A Health Insurance Assistance Bill | Activism vs. Punditry >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Sanders Hold On The Bernanke Renomination | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

According to (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Anne on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:28:35 AM EST

the FDL News Desk, a Republican is also putting a hold on the nomination:

As Ben Bernanke's confirmation hearing begins in the Senate Banking Committee, a source tells FDL News that one Senate staffer and an outside source confirmed to him that at least one Republican on the committee will also place a hold on the Federal Reserve chairman, throwing the process into potential turmoil and giving Chris Dodd a difficult series of choices to make.
Dodd, who just announced his intention to vote for Bernanke's confirmation in the Banking Committee and on the floor of the Senate, would be in charge of the decision to honor or ignore that hold. The fact that Dodd tried to place a hold on the FISA Amendments Act in 2007-08, and was generally ignored by Harry Reid, just adds a layer of irony to the process.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of his work behind the scenes on the Bernanke confirmation, told me that two separate sources assured him that the Republican hold would be made public after today's hearing. One staffer said that two Republicans would place the hold, while the other said it would just be one. The source said that the trans-partisan nature of opposition to Bernanke, with a conservative Republican and a socialist independent uniting to block the appointment, shows the intensity of the feelings on the issue. "It's great to see everyone come together - Democrats, Republicans, progressives and libertarians, against this Federal Reserve, which is not federal, and not a reserve, just a group printing money and giving it to their buddies," the source said.
While most people think that the multiple holds would delay the process, it's unclear whether or not it would succeed. Dodd would probably have the discretion to roll over the hold in committee, though he may be reluctant to do so, experts in Senate procedure said. Harry Reid could also seek cloture on the motion to proceed on Bernanke's nomination on the floor, which would require 60 votes.

The plot thickens...

: "Trans-partisanship" now? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Cream City on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 10:41:19 AM EST

Is this a new term to replace bipartisanship, perhaps indicating that the latter has been so exposed as simply shtick?
Terrific. Now we have political trannies?!
But to the point, this reminds me to message my senator on the committee to put a hold on the Bernanke reappointment, too, after what Ben said yesterday.

: Yes (none / 0) (#4)
by jbindc on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:59:45 PM EST

Sen. Jim Bunning has placed a hold also.

Bunning blasted Bernanke, whose nomination he did not support when President George W. Bush nominated him, during the Banking hearing.
"I will do everything I can to stop your nomination, and drag out this process as long as I can," Bunning said.

You're absolutely right about the backwardness (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:12:55 AM EST

of the Republican "constitutional" argument. Putting the whole thing in perspective though, I think the Dems should have made a deal with the Rs in 2005: you get your "upperdown" votes (they did anyway) but you have to agree with us to abolish the filibuster entirely.

Of course, I think most Dems are opposed to that too, for reasons that I agree less and less with.

: Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Steve M on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 09:49:41 PM EST

there was a 0% chance we were ever going to get rid of the filibuster altogether and I have no idea why people act like such a deal was ever within the realm of possibility.
In 1995 when Harkin made a proposal to water down the filibuster - not get rid of it, just weaken it a little - not one single Republican voted for it. And like 2005, this was also under a Republican majority. They're not stupid.

The senate has a right to exert it's influence (none / 0) (#3)
by Watermark on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:31:48 AM EST

and if it chooses to do so by majority vote, then so be it.

They are going to have to take the (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 04:52:53 PM EST

banks over now. I don't care if Obama wants to do it or not. I just read that Bernanke is proposing cutting Soc Sec and Medicare. I firmly believe what Krugman has said about such "solutions" in the past and that is if anything is done at all it can only be that Soc Sec and such programs are plumped up. If you go the other way we only get more contraction and the economy continues to cannabalize itself. Investors need to lose now. Social Security and Medicare cannot lose.....and if you lose your investment I can still give you Social Security and Medicare. If they take Social Security and Medicare to prolong how long they can rape your investments.....in the end I have nothing for you!

Bernanke Should Go (none / 0) (#8)
by norris morris on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 07:03:50 PM EST

Unquestionably a Wall Street Wonder with no empathy,competence, or will to attack job creation in a real sense. This guy is trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare because we have a weak President who will compromise on anything to remain in office.

Like Obama, this guy has no connection, no feeling for the people's problems. It's impossible to solve the problems of meaningful job creation and Regulation of Banks and Wall St
with Bernanke, as like Obama they believe in a trickle down theory of recovery.

And how did Obama call for a Job Recovery Summit without engaging the Dept of Commerce?

This entire administration is a disaster.