Dems pushing to limit filibusters (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.

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.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.

What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Two completely different issue. The filibuster has been the cornerstone in keeping the Senate a moderate voice of reason. Now it will be run by a bunch of hacks. This precedence will have long range effects which will escalate politics divisiveness to a much higher level. The issue this is being done over is pretty small potatoes on the scheme of things.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.

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.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.

What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Two completely different issue. The filibuster has been the cornerstone in keeping the Senate a moderate voice of reason. Now it will be run by a bunch of hacks. This precedence will have long range effects which will escalate politics divisiveness to a much higher level. The issue this is being done over is pretty small potatoes on the scheme of things.

Perhaps this was true 10 years ago, but now it's become a tool to essentially paralyze the party in power. That's not reasonable.

 

[jamny]

Oh, so two wrongs DO make a right.

 

[Rayderr]

Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.

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.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.

What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

what does the debt ceiling have to do with judicial appointments?

 

[quickhands]

Obamacare repealed on simple majority. then line up all dem senators who are up in 16 and challenge them not to break their lame duck presidents veto.

 

[The Z Machine]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

 

[quickhands]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

until the majority gets rid of the filibuster.

 

[Rayderr]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

 

[Boston]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

That was the tactic the dems used in Massachusetts with regard to the open Senate seat...the rules changed based on what worked in their favor at the current time...means to an end...

 

[TobiasFunke]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier about that going against fundamental GOP principles of small government, this would be a terrible idea for them from a practical standpoint too. Even if they win the Senate in 2014, they have to realistically know that there's a good chance the Dems would win it right back in 2016 given the open seats in that election. So they'd be giving themselves two years of added Senatorial power. with a lame duck Democrat in the White House who can veto everything they do without consequence. And then at the end of that two years they'd likely be turning that added power back to the Dems. Makes very little sense, strategically speaking.

 

[Rayderr]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier about that going against fundamental GOP principles of small government, this would be a terrible idea for them from a practical standpoint too. Even if they win the Senate in 2014, they have to realistically know that there's a good chance the Dems would win it right back in 2016 given the open seats in that election. So they'd be giving themselves two years of added Senatorial power. with a lame duck Democrat in the White House who can veto everything they do without consequence. And then at the end of that two years they'd likely be turning that added power back to the Dems. Makes very little sense, strategically speaking.

So they wait until 2016 when they have a majority and the white house. Now that changing Senate rules is in play thanks to the Dems, the GOP is going to make changes when they feel it's advantageous for them. So congrats Democrats on starting us down this slippery slope.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier about that going against fundamental GOP principles of small government, this would be a terrible idea for them from a practical standpoint too. Even if they win the Senate in 2014, they have to realistically know that there's a good chance the Dems would win it right back in 2016 given the open seats in that election. So they'd be giving themselves two years of added Senatorial power. with a lame duck Democrat in the White House who can veto everything they do without consequence. And then at the end of that two years they'd likely be turning that added power back to the Dems. Makes very little sense, strategically speaking.

So they wait until 2016 when they have a majority and the white house. Now that changing Senate rules is in play thanks to the Dems, the GOP is going to make changes when they feel it's advantageous for them. So congrats Democrats on starting us down this slippery slope.

That makes more sense, except for the part where the have to win/hold the majority in the 2016 Senate election. And of course, as I said before the whole idea of making it easier for the federal government to pass new laws isn't exactly in line with the current GOP platform. Sure they can repeal easily too, but a repeal and re-enact cycle just creates more "uncertainty," something they also claim to strongly oppose.

Anyway, it's not really a "slippery slope," unless we're slipping back to where we've been for most of the country's existence. Use of the filibuster to obstruct anything and everything is a modern invention- it was basically nonexistent as recently as the 1970s. Anyone who favors the Constitution's vision for the legislature should be in favor of getting rid of filibusters.

 

[quickhands]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier about that going against fundamental GOP principles of small government, this would be a terrible idea for them from a practical standpoint too. Even if they win the Senate in 2014, they have to realistically know that there's a good chance the Dems would win it right back in 2016 given the open seats in that election. So they'd be giving themselves two years of added Senatorial power. with a lame duck Democrat in the White House who can veto everything they do without consequence. And then at the end of that two years they'd likely be turning that added power back to the Dems. Makes very little sense, strategically speaking.

hence nuclear option....it's disastrous and short sighted.

time to turn the Senate back to the states.

 

[Rayderr]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier about that going against fundamental GOP principles of small government, this would be a terrible idea for them from a practical standpoint too. Even if they win the Senate in 2014, they have to realistically know that there's a good chance the Dems would win it right back in 2016 given the open seats in that election. So they'd be giving themselves two years of added Senatorial power. with a lame duck Democrat in the White House who can veto everything they do without consequence. And then at the end of that two years they'd likely be turning that added power back to the Dems. Makes very little sense, strategically speaking.

So they wait until 2016 when they have a majority and the white house. Now that changing Senate rules is in play thanks to the Dems, the GOP is going to make changes when they feel it's advantageous for them. So congrats Democrats on starting us down this slippery slope.

That makes more sense, except for the part where the have to win/hold the majority in the 2016 Senate election. And of course, as I said before the whole idea of making it easier for the federal government to pass new laws isn't exactly in line with the current GOP platform. Sure they can repeal easily too, but a repeal and re-enact cycle just creates more "uncertainty," something they also claim to strongly oppose.

Anyway, it's not really a "slippery slope," unless we're slipping back to where we've been for most of the country's existence. Use of the filibuster to obstruct anything and everything is a modern invention- it was basically nonexistent as recently as the 1970s. Anyone who favors the Constitution's vision for the legislature should be in favor of getting rid of filibusters.

You know what is part of the GOP platform? Getting in power, staying in power, and passing all the laws to shape the country as they see fit. That's the most important part in both parties platforms.

The slippery slope statement was because now whenever it's advantageous for the GOP to do so, Senate rules are going to be changed. Dems will do the same. So we're going to see the eventual erosion of the all the senate rules imo. For the past couple decades, the 2 parties have been in this sort of one upmanship (or one downmanship depending on your point of view.) "You did that? Well fine, we're going to do this!" as the 2 sides continue to fight like 3 year olds. Now we've gotten to the point where nothing is off limits.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier about that going against fundamental GOP principles of small government, this would be a terrible idea for them from a practical standpoint too. Even if they win the Senate in 2014, they have to realistically know that there's a good chance the Dems would win it right back in 2016 given the open seats in that election. So they'd be giving themselves two years of added Senatorial power. with a lame duck Democrat in the White House who can veto everything they do without consequence. And then at the end of that two years they'd likely be turning that added power back to the Dems. Makes very little sense, strategically speaking.

So they wait until 2016 when they have a majority and the white house. Now that changing Senate rules is in play thanks to the Dems, the GOP is going to make changes when they feel it's advantageous for them. So congrats Democrats on starting us down this slippery slope.

That makes more sense, except for the part where the have to win/hold the majority in the 2016 Senate election. And of course, as I said before the whole idea of making it easier for the federal government to pass new laws isn't exactly in line with the current GOP platform. Sure they can repeal easily too, but a repeal and re-enact cycle just creates more "uncertainty," something they also claim to strongly oppose.

Anyway, it's not really a "slippery slope," unless we're slipping back to where we've been for most of the country's existence. Use of the filibuster to obstruct anything and everything is a modern invention- it was basically nonexistent as recently as the 1970s. Anyone who favors the Constitution's vision for the legislature should be in favor of getting rid of filibusters.

You know what is part of the GOP platform? Getting in power, staying in power, and passing all the laws to shape the country as they see fit. That's the most important part in both parties platforms.

The slippery slope statement was because now whenever it's advantageous for the GOP to do so, Senate rules are going to be changed. Dems will do the same. So we're going to see the eventual erosion of the all the senate rules imo. For the past couple decades, the 2 parties have been in this sort of one upmanship (or one downmanship depending on your point of view.) "You did that? Well fine, we're going to do this!" as the 2 sides continue to fight like 3 year olds. Now we've gotten to the point where nothing is off limits.

I agree with the bolded of course. But my point is that changing the filibuster rules does nothing to help them in with those goals, and actually probably hurts them. Assuming they win the Senate majority in 2014, they get two years when they can pass laws through the Senate easier, but those laws are still subject to veto from a Democratic president (and a lame duck at that), so they still won't be passing any new laws without bipartisan support. And then in 2016 there's a very good chance they'll be giving the enhanced power of the Senate majority right back to the Dems, based on the seats that are up at that time. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that?

Other than the filbuster/cloture rules, what other Senate rules do you fear will be changed? And why do you think elections can't act as a sufficient check on that? If one party changes the rules in a way that Americans don't like, Americans can vote them out of power.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Given this sort of thing...

On Thursday afternoon, as one Republican after another went to the Senate floor to lament the end of one type of filibuster, they voted against cutting off debate on the annual defense policy bill, a measure that has passed with bipartisan support every year for decades.

IMO the filibuster will be completely dead long before Republicans retake the Senate.

It's also worth noting that post-WWII the Republicans have held the Senate for 18 years, while Dems have held it for 50. In the long run I think it's likely the Republicans will regret sabotaging the minority party's biggest protection.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The filibuster still exists for legislation, right? This only covers judicial and executive appointments lower than supreme court justice, right?

For now. I see that changing now when the republicans regain control.

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier about that going against fundamental GOP principles of small government, this would be a terrible idea for them from a practical standpoint too. Even if they win the Senate in 2014, they have to realistically know that there's a good chance the Dems would win it right back in 2016 given the open seats in that election. So they'd be giving themselves two years of added Senatorial power. with a lame duck Democrat in the White House who can veto everything they do without consequence. And then at the end of that two years they'd likely be turning that added power back to the Dems. Makes very little sense, strategically speaking.

So they wait until 2016 when they have a majority and the white house. Now that changing Senate rules is in play thanks to the Dems, the GOP is going to make changes when they feel it's advantageous for them. So congrats Democrats on starting us down this slippery slope.

That makes more sense, except for the part where the have to win/hold the majority in the 2016 Senate election. And of course, as I said before the whole idea of making it easier for the federal government to pass new laws isn't exactly in line with the current GOP platform. Sure they can repeal easily too, but a repeal and re-enact cycle just creates more "uncertainty," something they also claim to strongly oppose.

Anyway, it's not really a "slippery slope," unless we're slipping back to where we've been for most of the country's existence. Use of the filibuster to obstruct anything and everything is a modern invention- it was basically nonexistent as recently as the 1970s. Anyone who favors the Constitution's vision for the legislature should be in favor of getting rid of filibusters.

You know what is part of the GOP platform? Getting in power, staying in power, and passing all the laws to shape the country as they see fit. That's the most important part in both parties platforms.

The slippery slope statement was because now whenever it's advantageous for the GOP to do so, Senate rules are going to be changed. Dems will do the same. So we're going to see the eventual erosion of the all the senate rules imo. For the past couple decades, the 2 parties have been in this sort of one upmanship (or one downmanship depending on your point of view.) "You did that? Well fine, we're going to do this!" as the 2 sides continue to fight like 3 year olds. Now we've gotten to the point where nothing is off limits.

We've seen this is the House for a long time. There was even a thread about it here just a few weeks ago because The Speaker changed a rule with majority vote without so much as notice to the minority party as per another standing rule and majority practice.

What happened yesterday was 100 years in the making. The Senate as an institution died in 1913 and it's been slowly decaying since then. Yesterday the bones finally just disolved into ash. It's a democratic wing of the Congress now no different than the House, only with longer terms. This is what the progressives/ little d democrats/ whatever you want to call them wanted 100 years ago and we've got it. The legislative branch was not created to function this way and as a result it is going to be a mess, but it really is nothing new.

The 17th Amendment culminated itself with this for the most part. There is nothing left of the Senate of the United States. Maybe that's a good thing. We've had that debate before. But lamenting the awful policy and political congeniality that is going to occur now is a waste of time. It's been going that way, and the Constitution was amended to force it to go that way, for a long time. Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Also, just starting to look at the history of all this and realized that people are conflating two related, but IMO separate, issues:

1) should the majority party (50+) be able to vote down a President's nominees? In other words, when a President nominates someone they don't like is it appropriate for the Senate's majority party to cast votes against that nominee and reject them. If so, under what circumstances is that appropriate?

2) should the minority party (40+) be able to prevent a President's nominees from ever coming up for a vote through use of Senate procedures. If so, under what circumstances is that appropriate?

Though the end result may be the same, a President's nominees aren't confirmed, IMO they're very different questions.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Also, just starting to look at the history of all this and realized that people are conflating two related, but IMO separate, issues:

1) should the majority party (50+) be able to vote down a President's nominees? In other words, when a President nominates someone they don't like is it appropriate for the Senate's majority party to cast votes against that nominee and reject them. If so, under what circumstances is that appropriate?

2) should the minority party (40+) be able to prevent a President's nominees from ever coming up for a vote through use of Senate procedures. If so, under what circumstances is that appropriate?

Though the end result may be the same, a President's nominees aren't confirmed, IMO they're very different questions.

1 - Yes. And No. I'm one of those people that thinks the President should get the nominees that he wants for the most part. I mean, you can't force a President to have an inner circle of political opponents. Government can't work that way. But at least there is a check for the truly awful.

2. No. It really should never be appropriate. At the end of the day, the purpose of the legislative branch is to vote - on something. Debate for a period, then vote.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

Frankly I don't know why we just don't end the bicameral aspect of the legislature altogether and transform it into one large chamber no different from the Imperial Senate type thing.

 

[Rayderr]

Also, just starting to look at the history of all this and realized that people are conflating two related, but IMO separate, issues:

1) should the majority party (50+) be able to vote down a President's nominees? In other words, when a President nominates someone they don't like is it appropriate for the Senate's majority party to cast votes against that nominee and reject them. If so, under what circumstances is that appropriate?

2) should the minority party (40+) be able to prevent a President's nominees from ever coming up for a vote through use of Senate procedures. If so, under what circumstances is that appropriate?

Though the end result may be the same, a President's nominees aren't confirmed, IMO they're very different questions.

Honestly, the whole judiciary nomination process if ####ed up to begin with. The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

 

[Boston]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLo3EaT1EVk&feature=player_embedded

Should have just said present...can't get caught for fibbing by doing that...

 

[Homer J Simpson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLo3EaT1EVk&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, it's not like anything's changed since then.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

 

[dickey moe]

Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.

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.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.

What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Two completely different issue. The filibuster has been the cornerstone in keeping the Senate a moderate voice of reason. Now it will be run by a bunch of hacks. This precedence will have long range effects which will escalate politics divisiveness to a much higher level. The issue this is being done over is pretty small potatoes on the scheme of things.

Perhaps this was true 10 years ago, but now it's become a tool to essentially paralyze the party in power. That's not reasonable.

I'm sure this will be your position when the R's acquire control again. Beware of what you wish for.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

YES PLEASE

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

YES PLEASE

 

[Rayderr]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid forced a rules change that might well prove to be of equal consequence. Technically, his reform of the filibuster is modest: It lifts the 60-vote threshold on all executive-branch nominations and judicial nominations, save for the Supreme Court.In practice, it is sweeping: By changing the rules mid-session with 51 votes, Reid unwound the Senate's multi-decade transition from a chamber where majorities ruled into a chamber where only supermajorities could govern. The filibuster is effectively dead and the majority, to a degree that hasn't been true in years, is back in charge. (For more on this, see 9 reasons this will reshape American politics.)

Reid's decision had more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it. In 2005, when Republicans considered a similar change, Reid called it "breaking the rules to change the rules." Of course, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's outraged reaction was no less hypocritical. Back in 2005, he said changing the rules with 51 votes was simply "what the majority in the Senate has often done — use its constitutional authority under article I, section 5, to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority vote.”

The truth is Reid didn't break any rules on Thursday. As McConnell correctly said in 2005, Senate procedure can be reformed by a simple majority vote. What Reid did, rather, was break a norm against making major rules changes with 51 votes.

Worth noting, again, that there's little doubt that McConnell wanted this change as well. And I suspect the continued obstruction (like the defense bill vote yesterday) is designed to have Dems strip the filibuster out of the Senate entirely so they don't have to do it themselves.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

YES PLEASE

Would change everything. California -- you guys have 12 Senators now. Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas -- you guys share one Senator.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.

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.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.

What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Two completely different issue. The filibuster has been the cornerstone in keeping the Senate a moderate voice of reason. Now it will be run by a bunch of hacks. This precedence will have long range effects which will escalate politics divisiveness to a much higher level. The issue this is being done over is pretty small potatoes on the scheme of things.

Perhaps this was true 10 years ago, but now it's become a tool to essentially paralyze the party in power. That's not reasonable.

I'm sure this will be your position when the R's acquire control again. Beware of what you wish for.

These rules were being abused as they were, and paralyzing gov't from doing it's job. I'm more than happy to move forward with less procedural bull#### holding up the government, even knowing that there will be times when the filibuster would have helped stop nominees I don't like.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

I would expect the voting to change considerably if a party knew they could block any appointment with merely 51% of their own membership.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

YES PLEASE

Would change everything. California -- you guys have 12 Senators now. Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas -- you guys share one Senator.

Why would you prefer that, out of curiosity?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

Are those judicial appointees or does the number include administrative appointees? And 108 of how many?

 

[Rayderr]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

I would expect the voting to change considerably if a party knew they could block any appointment with merely 51% of their own membership.

What good would that do? Those same people would then need 51% of the other party to get a guy they like.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

YES PLEASE

Would change everything. California -- you guys have 12 Senators now. Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas -- you guys share one Senator.

Why would you prefer that, out of curiosity?

1) Because it would be more fair.

2) Because it lead to outcomes I agree with more.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Thinking this through a bit more...

A truly cynical person might easily be persuaded to believe that all of the posturing is nothing more than the legislative equivalent of 'Oh, no -- please don't throw me into the briar patch.'

One explanation for recent events is that both Reid and McConnell recognize the damage that's been done to the Senate and want to stop it. McConnell can't be seen supporting Reid or challenging the Cruz wing of his party of course, but by allowing his caucus to break the earlier agreement on filibusters, and by engaging in continued obstruction he actually makes it easier for Reid to get where both of them want to go -- namely restoring a functioning Senate by limiting the filibuster.

I've said it several times before that McConnell is a pragmatic guy when push comes to shove and both he and Reid are Senate lifers/institutionalists. In this case, a quiet agreement to get rid of the filibuster would serve both their interests and McConnell's continued 'fight' only helps further the cause.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Harry Reid

"The filibuster prevents a Senator from ramming through legislation that only has the support of the minority."

2005

 

[Rayderr]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

Are those judicial appointees or does the number include administrative appointees? And 108 of how many?

Judicial. and out of 219 (and that 108 number may be low as there are a fair amount of "voice votes" so there's no actual tally. See the list here.)

 

[TobiasFunke]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

Are those judicial appointees or does the number include administrative appointees? And 108 of how many?

Judicial. and out of 219 (and that 108 number may be low as there are a fair amount of "voice votes" so there's no actual tally. See the list here.)

That's out of 219 nominations that have been gone to votes. Leaves off all the ones that are pending, potentially because of the threat of filibuster. But still it looks like there's bipartisan support for a decent number of folks. Interesting.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Harry Reid

"The filibuster prevents a Senator from ramming through legislation that only has the support of the minority."

2005

This has nothing to do with legislation.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

YES PLEASE

Would change everything. California -- you guys have 12 Senators now. Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas -- you guys share one Senator.

Yep. 10 more Feinsteins/Boxers, and no more John Thune.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Harry Reid

"The filibuster prevents a Senator from ramming through legislation that only has the support of the minority."

2005

This change is for nominees, not legislation.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

I would expect the voting to change considerably if a party knew they could block any appointment with merely 51% of their own membership.

What good would that do? Those same people would then need 51% of the other party to get a guy they like.

Why are you assuming that vacancies would eventually be filled?

 

[Rayderr]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

I would expect the voting to change considerably if a party knew they could block any appointment with merely 51% of their own membership.

What good would that do? Those same people would then need 51% of the other party to get a guy they like.

Why are you assuming that vacancies would eventually be filled?

Because they were even before all this removing the filibuster non-sense.

 

[Rayderr]

The Judicial branch should be the non-political branch of gov't. They should lean neither left nor right. The best way to go about doing that is that any nominee would have to get at least 50% of the vote from all parties.

You think that one guy could handle all the cases?

108 of Obama's appointees have gotten approved with unanimous votes. Several dozen more where the nays were in the single digits.

Are those judicial appointees or does the number include administrative appointees? And 108 of how many?

Judicial. and out of 219 (and that 108 number may be low as there are a fair amount of "voice votes" so there's no actual tally. See the list here.)

That's out of 219 nominations that have been gone to votes. Leaves off all the ones that are pending, potentially because of the threat of filibuster. But still it looks like there's bipartisan support for a decent number of folks. Interesting.

Yup. And those that get bipartisan support are the ones we should all want.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why are you assuming that vacancies would eventually be filled?

Because they were even before all this removing the filibuster non-sense.

Not always. One of the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit is Justice Roberts's old seat. It's been vacant since 2005.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Might as well embrace it if we aren't going to fix it and start dismantling everything that the Senate is that even looks different than the House. No need for a charade any more.

Sweet! Time to get rid of this "two Senators from each state" nonsense.

YES PLEASE

Would change everything. California -- you guys have 12 Senators now. Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas -- you guys share one Senator.

Why would you prefer that, out of curiosity?

1) Because it would be more fair.

2) Because it lead to outcomes I agree with more.

Fair enough on #2, but why would it be more fair?

 

[Rayderr]

Why are you assuming that vacancies would eventually be filled?

Because they were even before all this removing the filibuster non-sense.

Not always. One of the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit is Justice Roberts's old seat. It's been vacant since 2005.

And yet 4 of Obamas appointees got a unanimous vote for that very same court.

ETA: Actually my bad. That's for district court. However, Obama's nominee of Srivinasan for the DC appeals court got approved unanimously.