Sign up for our daily newsletter

Politics-govt

Wicker explains how Senate avoided 'nuclear option'

Chad Groening   (OneNewsNow.com) Wednesday, July 17, 2013

A Republican U.S. senator is pleased that a compromise has been reached by the Senate in order to avert a “nuclear option" crisis. 

U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) says after a series of bipartisan meetings, a compromise was reached over two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had threatened to change the rules and impose the "nuclear option" to end the ability of 41 senators in the 100-member chamber to block action on White House nominations other than judges.

Reid was frustrated that Republicans refused to move forward with nine Obama appointments.

Wicker, Roger (R-Mississippi)According to Wicker, the Obama administration agreed to “pull” the two NLRB nominees.

“And that's the case that has actually been ruled in our favor as an unconstitutional recess appointment by the second highest court in the land,” Wicker tells OneNewsNow. “And it's on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Wicker believes the high court will rule that the president of the United States does not get to decide if Congress is or is not in session for purposes of recess appointments.   

"What he did was a flagrant overreach. And the appeals court has ruled that is an overreach and that it was unconstitutional in fact," says Wicker. "And I have every confidence that we will win a victory there, and this power grab on behalf of President Obama will not be allowed to stand. And we preserved our right to make that case."

Wicker says he hopes this compromise will enable the Senate to get past partisan gridlock and back to doing the work of the American people.


We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. (More on this policy)
comments powered by Disqus