Dems pushing to limit filibusters (1 Viewer)

[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.

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

Huh? Only one Obama nominee has been added to the D.C. Circuit.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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?

Because it's unfair for 38 million Californians to have two Senators while 3 million Montana/Wyoming/Dakotans have eight Senators.

 

[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.

Huh? Only one Obama nominee has been added to the D.C. Circuit.

Please see edit.

 

[TheIronSheik]

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?

Because it's unfair for 38 million Californians to have two Senators while 3 million Montana/Wyoming/Dakotans have eight Senators.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from.

 

[jonessed]

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

The "nuclear option" wasn't the change to the filibuster, it was the change to the rules governing the Senate. Previous filibuster changes were passed with 2/3 votes. Now that it only requires 51 votes to change the rules there are essentially no more rules. The filibuster is dead, it's just a matter of time before it's gone entirely.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Fatguy - I assume you just want to eliminate the senate altogether?

Do you see any value in a bicameral form of legislature?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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?

Because it's unfair for 38 million Californians to have two Senators while 3 million Montana/Wyoming/Dakotans have eight Senators.

It's actually not but you've never been right about that argument anyway so I'm not wasting my time. Besides, the Senate doesn't exist anymore anyway so its no use arguing it.

 

[jonessed]

Fatguy - I assume you just want to eliminate the senate altogether?

Do you see any value in a bicameral form of legislature?

I don't think he supports minority rights at all.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Fatguy - I assume you just want to eliminate the senate altogether?

Do you see any value in a bicameral form of legislature?

I don't feel strongly about the number of camerals.

 

[TheIronSheik]

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

The "nuclear option" wasn't the change to the filibuster, it was the change to the rules governing the Senate. Previous filibuster changes were passed with 2/3 votes. Now that it only requires 51 votes to change the rules there are essentially no more rules. The filibuster is dead, it's just a matter of time before it's gone entirely.

That's a shame. It's my favorite part of government. Nothing better than seeing some old white guy reading Dr. Seuss books and giving little known facts about their state for 24 hours

 

[cstu]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

 

[jamny]

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.

I love how you're planting the seeds to blame this on the Republicans.

Well done!

 

[Sinn Fein]

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

The "nuclear option" wasn't the change to the filibuster, it was the change to the rules governing the Senate. Previous filibuster changes were passed with 2/3 votes. Now that it only requires 51 votes to change the rules there are essentially no more rules. The filibuster is dead, it's just a matter of time before it's gone entirely.

I disagree.

Politicians live, and act, to be re-elected. In the house, you can be about as partisan as you want, thanks to gerrymandered districts, where the populace votes for the party more than the candidate.

But in the Senate, you have to be more centrist to win elections. I think the public will view a rule change to filibusters for executive appointments to essentially bureaucratic positions, differently than playing fast and loose with the rules on legislation and/or more important nominations. When the public thinks one party has gone too far, they will lose at the polls.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.

For whatever its worth McConnell is under fire from both sides here in Kentucky. I have seen anti-McConnell ads from Democratic PACs, and Republican/Tea Party Pacs. I am sure he'd like to reign in the intra-party bickering from the Tea Party candidates.

 

[Boston]

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.

I love how you're planting the seeds to blame this on the Republicans.

Well done!

It is...the only thing missing was McConnell hiding in the grassy knoll...

 

[jonessed]

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

The "nuclear option" wasn't the change to the filibuster, it was the change to the rules governing the Senate. Previous filibuster changes were passed with 2/3 votes. Now that it only requires 51 votes to change the rules there are essentially no more rules. The filibuster is dead, it's just a matter of time before it's gone entirely.

I disagree.Politicians live, and act, to be re-elected. In the house, you can be about as partisan as you want, thanks to gerrymandered districts, where the populace votes for the party more than the candidate.

But in the Senate, you have to be more centrist to win elections. I think the public will view a rule change to filibusters for executive appointments to essentially bureaucratic positions, differently than playing fast and loose with the rules on legislation and/or more important nominations. When the public thinks one party has gone too far, they will lose at the polls.

Maybe. After they have wreaked havoc for two years.

 

[jon_mx]

I love the filibuster. Any American who loves freedom should love the filibuster. Our government has created far to many laws and spends way too much. We need to slow done this monster.

 

[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.

I love how you're planting the seeds to blame this on the Republicans.

Well done!

Either that or I'm suggesting that, as Senators with a lot of respect for the Senate and who stand to benefit from the change when they're in the majority, Reid and McConnell have quietly agreed that the filibuster needs to go. And both of them are working towards that goal in their own way without appearing to be allies.

If I wanted to blame Republicans I'd point to any of several data sources that show that the filibuster's growth has been primarily driven by Republicans for the last 30 years and that no reasonable person could look at the last four years and reach any conclusion other than that the filibuster is being abused.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I love the filibuster. Any American who loves freedom should love the filibuster. Our government has created far to many laws and spends way too much. We need to slow done this monster.

Yes, I'm sure the Freedom Riders loved the filibuster.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I love the filibuster. Any American who loves freedom should love the filibuster. Our government has created far to many laws and spends way too much. We need to slow done this monster.

I assume you realize that most of the spending is ongoing and mandatory under already existing federal law and that the only way to slow that down is by reforming those laws through the legislative process, yes?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I hope it's clear that I'm speculating, but here's the logic...

McConnell and Reid reached an agreement about not filibustering nominees earlier this year, but Republicans never observed the agreement. Likewise McConnell could have done a lot more to stop (or at least delay) Reid yesterday, but didn't do so.

McConnell doesn't do things for no reason and so it's worth asking why he might have allowed the agreement to be broken and why he didn't really fight the Dems' change yesterday. One answer is that he's quite happy to see the filibuster go and that he thought his chances of getting rid of it while Dems are in power were better or more politically advantageous than doing it himself next time he was Majority Leader.

 

[Rayderr]

I hope it's clear that I'm speculating, but here's the logic...

McConnell and Reid reached an agreement about not filibustering nominees earlier this year, but Republicans never observed the agreement. Likewise McConnell could have done a lot more to stop (or at least delay) Reid yesterday, but didn't do so.

McConnell doesn't do things for no reason and so it's worth asking why he might have allowed the agreement to be broken and why he didn't really fight the Dems' change yesterday. One answer is that he's quite happy to see the filibuster go and that he thought his chances of getting rid of it while Dems are in power were better or more politically advantageous than doing it himself next time he was Majority Leader.

yeah, that never happened.

 

[jon_mx]

I love the filibuster. Any American who loves freedom should love the filibuster. Our government has created far to many laws and spends way too much. We need to slow done this monster.

I assume you realize that most of the spending is ongoing and mandatory under already existing federal law and that the only way to slow that down is by reforming those laws through the legislative process, yes?

If I believed the Dems would actually cut spending including some of their beloved entitlements, it might be a legitimate point. But if Dems had that much power growth would be even more out of control with the line exception of defense getting cut to shreds.

 

[jamny]

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.

I love how you're planting the seeds to blame this on the Republicans.

Well done!

Either that or I'm suggesting that, as Senators with a lot of respect for the Senate and who stand to benefit from the change when they're in the majority, Reid and McConnell have quietly agreed that the filibuster needs to go. And both of them are working towards that goal in their own way without appearing to be allies.

If I wanted to blame Republicans I'd point to any of several data sources that show that the filibuster's growth has been primarily driven by Republicans for the last 30 years and that no reasonable person could look at the last four years and reach any conclusion other than that the filibuster is being abused.

The bolded is a better argument.

McConnell and Reid aren't working together. That's part of the problem. It doesn't justify this action though, imo.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I love the filibuster. Any American who loves freedom should love the filibuster. Our government has created far to many laws and spends way too much. We need to slow done this monster.

I assume you realize that most of the spending is ongoing and mandatory under already existing federal law and that the only way to slow that down is by reforming those laws through the legislative process, yes?

If I believed the Dems would actually cut spending including some of their beloved entitlements, it might be a legitimate point. But if Dems had that much power growth would be even more out of control with the line exception of defense getting cut to shreds.

If you believe Republicans will cut entitlement you'd still want to get rid of the filibuster, because without it they can do so without having to placate a certain number of Dems once they win the Senate, right?

 

[TheIronSheik]

If most people, at some point felt this was a good thing, how can it be bad?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I hope it's clear that I'm speculating, but here's the logic...

McConnell and Reid reached an agreement about not filibustering nominees earlier this year, but Republicans never observed the agreement. Likewise McConnell could have done a lot more to stop (or at least delay) Reid yesterday, but didn't do so.

McConnell doesn't do things for no reason and so it's worth asking why he might have allowed the agreement to be broken and why he didn't really fight the Dems' change yesterday. One answer is that he's quite happy to see the filibuster go and that he thought his chances of getting rid of it while Dems are in power were better or more politically advantageous than doing it himself next time he was Majority Leader.

yeah, that never happened.

Ok, you're right. It wasn't McConnell. Which nukes some of my speculation.

The deal was led by McCain on the Rs side, and the 'agreement' wasn't explicit. The explicit exchange was for votes on some stalled nominees. However, it was implied that in exchange for leaving the filibuster rules in place Republicans would stop abusing it.

I was mixing up the various deals on the filibuster. I can't find the details on the earlier deals (with McConnell) right now, but they are referenced here:

It was the third such threat to change the rules on a partisan vote in the past 21/ 2 years, with previous standoffs ending in a public deal with McConnell. No such embrace of the two leaders came this time, and McCain and Schumer said it was the closest the Senate has come to such a rule change since a similar effort by Republicans — then in the majority — in 2005.

 

[Steve Tasker]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

 

[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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

Absolutely. The more our elections matter, the better.

 

[Steve Tasker]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

Politicians should collaborate for the good of the people. Votes should not inherently be split down party lines without giving real thought to the issues. But we all know that neither party's leaders want this to happen.

Politics are broken in this country. Broken. My comment isn't a commentary on this filibuster reform and isn't directed at any party in particular.

 

[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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

Absolutely. The more our elections matter, the better.

So you're cool with all these states that have voted to block gay marriage and pass voter ID laws because it's the wishes of the people?

 

[humpback]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

Because it's crap. If 100% of the people vote for one party, then sure, let's "respect their wishes". When it's barely over 50%, they shouldn't have 100% say on everything.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

Absolutely. The more our elections matter, the better.

So you're cool with all these states that have voted to block gay marriage and pass voter ID laws because it's the wishes of the people?

Where did he say he was in favor of scrapping the judiciary?

 

[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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

Absolutely. The more our elections matter, the better.

So you're cool with all these states that have voted to block gay marriage and pass voter ID laws because it's the wishes of the people?

Where did he say he was in favor of scrapping the judiciary?

We gotta respect the wishes of the majority!!!!

 

[Slapdash]

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.

The people who keep saying this will cause chaos should take a long look at the chart you've linked. The Senate has been in an increasing state of chaos for decades.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

Because it's crap. If 100% of the people vote for one party, then sure, let's "respect their wishes". When it's barely over 50%, they shouldn't have 100% say on everything.

Then change the Constitution. There are tons of counter majoritarian measures in the Constitution (like the asinine Electoral College). This isn't one of them.

It's just funny to see Republicans suddenly care about minorities.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

Absolutely. The more our elections matter, the better.

So you're cool with all these states that have voted to block gay marriage and pass voter ID laws because it's the wishes of the people?

Where did he say he was in favor of scrapping the judiciary?

We gotta respect the wishes of the majority!!!!

If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Politicians should collaborate for the good of the people. Votes should not inherently be split down party lines without giving real thought to the issues. But we all know that neither party's leaders want this to happen.


Politics are broken in this country. Broken. My comment isn't a commentary on this filibuster reform and isn't directed at any party in particular.

Politicians for the most part will do what they have always done and always will do in a democracy- represent the interests of the people that vote for them. If their votes are split down party lines, it's because their constituents want or at least tolerate them voting that way.

There are reasons for the hyper-partisan mood in DC, but the reasons for it are external- things like gerrymandering and 24 hour cable news and partisan media/bloggers. Although even those are ultimately the responsibility of the people, since we're the ones who elect and re-elect the state reps who gerrymander and who watch and read all those news programs and web sites.

If people want reform, the first step is to accept that they're the ones primarily responsible for our current state of affairs, instead of blaming "Washington" or "the corporations" or whoever else they're shifting the blame to that day.

 

[Rayderr]

Where did he say he was in favor of scrapping the judiciary?

We gotta respect the wishes of the majority!!!!

If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people?

and...?

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

Absolutely. The more our elections matter, the better.

So you're cool with all these states that have voted to block gay marriage and pass voter ID laws because it's the wishes of the people?

Where did he say he was in favor of scrapping the judiciary?

We gotta respect the wishes of the majority!!!!

We have a Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If a law is passed with the consent of the majority and doesn't violate federal or state Constitution, then it should stand. If I disagree with it I'll take it upon myself to explain to the majority why they are wrong, just as the pro-gay marriage advocates have done successfully in this country over the last decade.

 

[humpback]

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

Because it's crap. If 100% of the people vote for one party, then sure, let's "respect their wishes". When it's barely over 50%, they shouldn't have 100% say on everything.

Then change the Constitution. There are tons of counter majoritarian measures in the Constitution (like the asinine Electoral College). This isn't one of them.

It's just funny to see Republicans suddenly care about minorities.

You clearly have more expertise in this area than I, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say what we're talking about here.

 

[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.

Regarding 1, if voters are disgusted enough with their behavior they'll vote them out.

In 2, voters have already voted that they don't want that party making decisions.

It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.

Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?

You willing to apply that logic to everything, or just situations where you think it benefits you?

Absolutely. The more our elections matter, the better.

So you're cool with all these states that have voted to block gay marriage and pass voter ID laws because it's the wishes of the people?

Where did he say he was in favor of scrapping the judiciary?

We gotta respect the wishes of the majority!!!!

We have a Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If a law is passed with the consent of the majority and doesn't violate federal or state Constitution, then it should stand. If I disagree with it I'll take it upon myself to explain to the majority why they are wrong, just as the pro-gay marriage advocates have done successfully in this country over the last decade.

No, no. You said you'd apply the logic to everything. Constitution don't mean jack anymore since a majority can just change that.

 

[humpback]

Where did he say he was in favor of scrapping the judiciary?

We gotta respect the wishes of the majority!!!!

If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people?

and...?

Yeah that part was clear, doesn't change anything.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, no. You said you'd apply the logic to everything. Constitution don't mean jack anymore since a majority can just change that.

You're better than this.

 

[Rayderr]

No, no. You said you'd apply the logic to everything. Constitution don't mean jack anymore since a majority can just change that.

You're better than this.

You're the one who agreed to it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, no. You said you'd apply the logic to everything. Constitution don't mean jack anymore since a majority can just change that.

You're better than this.

You're the one who agreed to it.

If nothing else, I guess I've learned that you're a Christo alias. Or Christo is a Rayderr alias. I'd recognize this word-parsing trolling effort anywhere.

You know very well that when you said "everything" I assumed from the context that you were referring to "no matter who was in power." I was not suggesting doing away with the Constitution. And on the slim chance that you didn't realize that, now I've said it.

 

[Zerp]

I haven't found anything official to corroborate this but I've seen and heard multiple sources claim there is language in what was forced through that says if the Senate changes hands, the rules revert back to a super-majority. If true, apparently laws only apply to Republicans.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Orwell must be rolling over in his grave.

I haven't found anything to corroborate this, but I heard that Republicans like to drink the blood of farm animals while wearing fishnets and buttplugs.

"To be, or not to be. That is the question." - James Bond

This needs more love. Awesome.

 

[Rayderr]

No, no. You said you'd apply the logic to everything. Constitution don't mean jack anymore since a majority can just change that.

You're better than this.

You're the one who agreed to it.

If nothing else, I guess I've learned that you're a Christo alias. Or Christo is a Rayderr alias. I'd recognize this word-parsing trolling effort anywhere.

You know very well that when you said "everything" I assumed from the context that you were referring to "no matter who was in power." I was not suggesting doing away with the Constitution. And on the slim chance that you didn't realize that, now I've said it.

OK, fine. Here's a non-constitution breaking scenario. Those eveil greedy GOPers get a majority in the house and senate and win the presidency. You're totally cool if they strip away programs for the poor, raise their taxes, and let the rich live tax free. You're totally cool with that, right? Because you want to respect their wishes, right?