BlogAds

Show Me Progress blog advertising is good for you

Blogads

In KC? Join us for libations every Wednesday!
Drinking Liberally - Midtown KC

Vulcan's Forge:

The Midwest's Premiere Sterling Silver Jewelers
Vulcans Forge

Located in the heart of Westport -- The Original Kansas City

Californos Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere, located in the heart of Westport
Search




Advanced Search
Local / Regional Links
National Links

Missouri news, views, and issues - Show Me Progress

Round one: McCaskill vs. secret holds

  

by: WillyK

Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 14:06:01 PM CDT


I've been keeping a mental checklist of the pluses and minuses that Claire McCaskill has racked up, per my druthers,  since she was elected. Sad as it makes me feel, I have to admit that for a long stretch her pluses have been few and far between, and not quite as big and bold as her minuses. Well, today she gets a great big, bold-print, double plus for taking on the Republican obstruction machine all by herself - and I am grinning as broadly as Carroll's Cheshire cat

One of the ways Republicans have tried to hinder the Obama administration has been to stall the President's nominations, and the secret hold, applied to about 80 nominations so far, has been one of the weapons of choice  Today, Senator McCaskill took a step that could force those who placed the holds to reveal themselves and justify their actions.

McCaskill has requested unanimous consent to vote on 18 stalled nominations - and she has indicated that she will do the same for 60 more nominations. According to Senate rules passed in 2007, this means that:

... once the unanimous consent motion is made on a nominee, the member who is holding that nominee has to file a letter explaining their hold and that has to be published in the Congressional record ...

Needless to say, many if not all of those placing holds might be seriously embarrassed if they had to identify themselves and come up with plausible reasons for holding up the nomination process. McCaskill twittered earlier today that she is "trying to put an end to 'secret' hold nonsense," and forcing the the guilty parties out into the light could be just the ticket. Of course, since she is nothing if not cautious, she followed up with this qualification lest anyone accuse her of acting rashly:

Only making motion so disclosure of the "secret"hold required on nominations that had NO opposition in committee.

Makes you want to reassure her that we would never suspect that she hadn't dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's - but, of course, there are those who would. No matter - way to go, Senator McCaskill! I'm proud that a Missouri Senator took this overdue step to try to beat back Republican thuggery, and insure that our government has the people in place to do what needs to be done.

WillyK :: Round one: McCaskill vs. secret holds
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email





Claire McCaskill (D) on the Senate floor (0.00 / 0)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ...I rise today, uh, to talk, not about obstructionism, but rather, about transparency and the rules. And the rule I'm gonna talk about today is a rule that, in fact, we embraced in the last Congress. When I first came to the Senate we embraced this rule, by a vote, I think, it was ninety-two to six. We said we're gonna change the way we do business around here when it comes to transparency. It was, I thought it was a great moment. I was excited that we were making these bold changes about the way the Senate works, to open up the doors and let the sunshine in.

Imagine my disappointment some two years later when I realized that for many members of this body that was a meaningless exercise. Because in the area of secret hold we are doing no better today then we were before we passed Senate Bill 1 in those early weeks of my time in the United States Senate in two thousand and seven.

[....]

Then if you wanted to oppose somebody, no problem. You want to hold somebody? That's your right as a senator. But own it. Own it. You're not here to be in a back room making a deal to leverage something for some kind of pork you want in your district. You know what you're here for? You're here to do the people's business. And if you have an objection to a nominee you should tell the public you have that objection and, frankly, you owe the public an explanation why. We're here working for them. We're doing the people's business here. We're not doing some back room deal. We're doing the people's business. So transparency is what this is about today.

[....]



543,895 votes

Meh... (0.00 / 0)
Click on the Youtube logo on the upper left and that'll take you there so the video will actually play.

543,895 votes

[ Parent ]
About
Read before posting:

Getting Started

Posting Guidelines

Diary Formatting Tips

Congressional Contact Info

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


SMP on Facebook
Show Me Progress on Facebook

Other State Blogs
News & Announcements

Powered by: SoapBlox