Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Situational principles

The motto of the New York Times: "depends on the party."  Ricochet: "Shorter NY Times: 'Filibustering Presidential nominees on the basis of ideology is bad, except when it isn't."  Take a wild guess when it isn't.


Kumsi Kumsa said...

Today on the Bizarro Viking Pundit blog (the only liberal in western North Dakota), they're talking about the demise of "discretionary" filibustering.

Eric said...

I think that - unlike the Times - I've been pretty consistent on the issue of executive-level filibusters. The President should be able to pick who can serve in the Executive branch or at least get an up-or-down vote.

Like Obama's view on pro forma Senate sessions to avoid recess appointments, the Times goes where ever the left wind blows.

Anonymous said...

It's kind of funny to look at the recent history and trends of filibusters on executive/judicial vacancies, and think, "You know whose core principles are worthless? A newspaper's."

It's also a little weird to oppose the abuse of arcane and arbitrary rules that block up-or-down votes, yet also stand up on behalf of 25-second pro forma sessions.