I wonder if Jennifer Rubin sees the contradiction in defending the filibuster against Democratic reform and decrying President Obama's recess appointments. Here she is on the filibuster:
Those planning on tinkering with Senate rules are well advised to do some serious thinking about the unintended consequences of their desire to give the Senate majority more power. So long as McConnell, 46 other Republicans and a slew of nervous red state Democrats are there, they might want to leave well enough alone. And for those who find wisdom in the Founders' design of the Senate, it would be wise to retain a filibuster rule that, as Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation, succinctly put it, "makes it harder for the politicians that cater to rent-seeking special interests to enact more laws that are generally unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible and/or undermine our liberty." Well, you can understand why the left would be on the other side in that debate.
Ha, clever. Here she is on recess appointments:
What, if anything, can be done by the imperious recess appointments of such controversial nominees? Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation emails me, "The real threat (which Robert C. Byrd famously did once) is for the entire GOP caucus" to refuse to consent to any further nominees unless Obama agrees to refrain from issuing more recess appointments.
Rubin wants it both ways. On one hand, she wants the Senate to retain its ability to understaff the executive branch. On the other, she cries "power grab!" when the president uses his Constitutional power to make recess appointments. But the latter is a necessary consequence of the former. If Rubin doesn't want Obama to rely on recess appointments, then she should support filibuster reform, or at least reform of the confirmation process. But if she doesn't want reform, then she should resign herself to the fact that the president will do what he can to run his government.
One last point: In both posts, Rubin positions herself as a defender of tradition and constitutional balance against the power-hungry Obama and his cadre of liberal Democrats. The problem, of course, is reality. The Senate is already a unique branch of government: members are older, serve for six years, are elected on different schedules, and have a fair amount of power relative to their counterparts in the House. The filibuster isn't a sacred principle, it's a procedural accident. If the Founders wanted the Senate to operate on supermajority rule, they would have specified it -- as they did with everything that requires a supermajority vote. As for recess appointments? There is real humor in watching a conservative defender of the Constitution savages the president for exercising his constitutional rights.
-- Jamelle Bouie
