This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That would be an unusual and incredibly short-sighted move for a party that claims the general philosophy of limiting the role of government. Nominations don't really have anything to do with expanding or limiting the role of the federal government, they just allow it to do jobs that are already assigned to it.
You may be right regarding judges. However, Obama has been pretty lazy about nominating for many positions regardless of GOP opposition.
I don't see why they wouldn't take Reid's lead and make their mark. If changing Senate rules with simple majorities is in play, then it's in play. If people want majority rule then maybe it's time to give it to them.
Yeah, I'm hoping that the easy path to confirmation and the 11-month time frame will get him to act faster.
The obvious difference is that "having more federal jobs filled" filled doesn't conflict with a fundamental position of the Democratic Party, but "having more federal laws" does conflict with a fundamental position of the Republican Party.
We'll see.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Yup. And then they could be immediately re-adopted as soon as the tables turned again, creating even more bureaucracy and uncertainty in the private sector. Like I said, it would be incredibly short-sighted.
They said the same thing when Dems passed a stimulus including lots of tax cuts that the R's asked for, and after they passed health care legislation modeled on what Heritage had produced for Romney.Plorfu said:
I think changing rules with a simple majority is incredibly short-sighted, but it's now the status quo. If this is the new norm then both sides should use the framework to push their agenda. I certainly don't expect either side to play by the old rules.
"A million dollars a year!!"I think you're missing my point. I think you've always been able to changes Senate rules with a simple majority; the question was which rules could you change without it blowing up in your face. Politics aside, I think most of us agree that there are too many stalled nominations and it's bad for the judicial system. I don't think most of us agree that there are too few laws. And what's more, almost all Republicans would disagree with that.
So they use the power to repeal laws and regulation.
And now Republicans, once back in power, will do the same thing to end filibuster rules as they pertain to SC judges.
also, isn't this move more in line with viewing the Senate merely as the House of Representatives, Graduate Level? (as opposed to its designed role as the more deliberative - and ostensibly cool-headed - chamber)
Supreme Court Justice Ted Cruz does freak me out a little, but not sure he'd really be much more extreme than Scalia/Thomas/Alito.
If the Democrats aren't using it to seize as much power as they can, why would the Republicans?
That's why it has been discussed for decades, but never used. Having the majority change rules on the fly would be chaotic. There's a reason it was called the "nuclear option". It completely changes the Senate.
Good luck with that. I fully expect them to beat Democrats over the head with this when given the chance.
It boggles my mind that you don't see the enormous difference between doing this for appointments and doing it for legislation. They're night and day.
and now they've just been given the green light to do it.They didn't with Bush.They are probably going to do this anyways.
I expect the Democrats may do it first. There's really no reason not to anymore.and now they've just been given the green light to do it.They didn't with Bush.They are probably going to do this anyways.
Changing the Senate rules has always required 2/3rds. Even when cloture rules were changed from 67 to 60 it was done with 2/3rds majority.
Right, that's why the Dems had to do it now. 11 months to appoint a crapload of judges is pretty sweet.
He was right. Removing the historical 2/3rds rule change vote to simple majority vote is going to cause chaos. If the majority can change the rules at-will there is really no point in having rules.
Republicans had the same opportunity, but didn't have the sack to do it. I say bravo to the Democrats for not being ####### like John McCain and his cabal of RINOS
I'm am not worried about either party causing chaos in the Senate at this point. We have chaos in the Senate. We have had chaos in the Senate for years.
As I recall, the majority can already change the rules -- Reid and the Dems considered it at the start of this Congress. And the filibuster has been changed several times before as well.
