Dems pushing to limit filibusters (1 Viewer)

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

That's the point. The Constitution has things to say about what happens when two legislative chambers don't agree or when two co-equal branches of government don't agree (less than you'd think, but it speaks on those questions). It even has things to say about when co-equal sovereigns don't agree.

It has nothing to say about what happens when a minority in any one legislative body doesn't like the direction the majority is moving in. Because none of those great Freedom Loving Founders had the slightest inkling that the minority should be able to gum up the works for the majority. The Constitution says that the Senate must advise and consent to judicial nominations. It doesn't say that the minority in the Senate must consent.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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?

Nobody is asking you to be totally OK with that. I assume in that situation, Tobias would pursue the same remedy I would. To try to win the next election. I certainly don't think the Republicans should be forced to gather a supermajority to cut taxes on the wealthy or something. That's why we have elections.

 

[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?

Nobody is asking you to be totally OK with that. I assume in that situation, Tobias would pursue the same remedy I would. To try to win the next election. I certainly don't think the Republicans should be forced to gather a supermajority to cut taxes on the wealthy or something. That's why we have elections.

But it's what the majority wants. You gotta respect that.

 

[tommyGunZ]

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.

EXACTLY

 

[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.

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?

Nobody is asking you to be totally OK with that. I assume in that situation, Tobias would pursue the same remedy I would. To try to win the next election. I certainly don't think the Republicans should be forced to gather a supermajority to cut taxes on the wealthy or something. That's why we have elections.

Exactly right.

I'm not sure why Rayderr has conflated "I acknowledge that as a legitimate exercise of power reflecting the will of the people" with "I support that."

 

[Steve Tasker]

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.

I agree. The power to fix the government lies with the people. But most people either don't see it that way or don't care, and would rather vote to elect corrupt politicans or partisan hacks.

 

[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.

That's the point. The Constitution has things to say about what happens when two legislative chambers don't agree or when two co-equal branches of government don't agree (less than you'd think, but it speaks on those questions). It even has things to say about when co-equal sovereigns don't agree.

It has nothing to say about what happens when a minority in any one legislative body doesn't like the direction the majority is moving in. Because none of those great Freedom Loving Founders had the slightest inkling that the minority should be able to gum up the works for the majority. The Constitution says that the Senate must advise and consent to judicial nominations. It doesn't say that the minority in the Senate must consent.

We're talking about whether having a simple majority in the Senate, House, and POTUS should allow free reign (not just for judicial nominations either).

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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?

Nobody is asking you to be totally OK with that. I assume in that situation, Tobias would pursue the same remedy I would. To try to win the next election. I certainly don't think the Republicans should be forced to gather a supermajority to cut taxes on the wealthy or something. That's why we have elections.

But it's what the majority wants. You gotta respect that.

This was the exact quote:

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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

And you were doing so well.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But most people either don't see it that way or don't care, and would rather vote to elect corrupt politicans or partisan hacks.

I just think folks are more savvy about the national implications of who they vote for these days. There used to be more Republicans representing blue states/districts and vice-versa. But the practical result of that was the handing over of power to an undesirable party leadership.

I've never voted Republican in any federal election, and I'd have a really hard time doing it, even if I thought the Republican was smart and decent and the Democrat was an incompetent sleazeball. Because electing the Republican means more power for people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

I'm not sure that there's an easy solution to this. Maybe some way to make it easier to oust incumbents in primaries.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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?

Not "cool with" in the sense that I'm for it. But absolutely "cool with" in the sense that if both houses of Congress passes a bill and it doesn't get vetoed it should become law. And "cool with" it not taking 60+ votes to pass normal legislation.

Then in the next election we can have a debate about those laws.

 

[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?

Nobody is asking you to be totally OK with that. I assume in that situation, Tobias would pursue the same remedy I would. To try to win the next election. I certainly don't think the Republicans should be forced to gather a supermajority to cut taxes on the wealthy or something. That's why we have elections.

But it's what the majority wants. You gotta respect that.

This was the exact quote:

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because things tend to go to hell in a jetpowered handbasket when one party has total control.

 

[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.

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?

Nobody is asking you to be totally OK with that. I assume in that situation, Tobias would pursue the same remedy I would. To try to win the next election. I certainly don't think the Republicans should be forced to gather a supermajority to cut taxes on the wealthy or something. That's why we have elections.

But it's what the majority wants. You gotta respect that.

This was the exact quote:

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Yup, that pretty much nails it.

 

[humpback]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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?

Nobody is asking you to be totally OK with that. I assume in that situation, Tobias would pursue the same remedy I would. To try to win the next election. I certainly don't think the Republicans should be forced to gather a supermajority to cut taxes on the wealthy or something. That's why we have elections.

But it's what the majority wants. You gotta respect that.

This was the exact quote:

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because things tend to go to hell in a jetpowered handbasket when one party has total control.

Well, then you know your remedy. Change the Constitution.

 

[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.

1:Republicans are doing a pretty good job of ensuring they don't sniff the White House for most of the near future. And if Texas flips, they'll be shut out for a good long while.

2: They've been going down this slippery slope for a while. In 2005, McConnell was going to pull the trigger on this, but the Gang of 14 put on the brakes and agreed to approve all nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. Well now about half of that Gang are out of office and the other half aren't respecting the deal. So, as Slate said, all the deal got the Democrats were a bunch of conservative judges and one big broken promise. Yesterday wasn't quite the watershed moment you want to make it out to be.

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well, then you know your remedy. Change the Constitution.

Or even simpler, just make your case at election time. Usually you can figure out that one party will maintain control of at least one of the House, Senate or White House, so campaign and vote accordingly for the other party for the branches still up in the air.

I think the people already kinda do this. I haven't checked the numbers but I believe historically, mid-term elections tend not to go well for the party that holds the White House.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

I just threw up in my mouth.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990 1968.

Let's go back to an ideologically equivalent time.

After the most liberal wing of the party started beliving it's own bull#### Democrats would have lost 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988 -- six in a row -- had it not been for Watergate.

 

[Steve Tasker]

This was the exact quote:

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Just to clarify my comment a little further, I didn't mean to get into an entire review of our judicial system, etc. My comment was more rhetorical - that is, politicians should not blindly follow their party leadership and be bound to a down-the-party-line vote, partisan politics are a major problem with the US government, and so on. Many people, both politicians and regular Joes, seem to view political debate as a zero-sum, win/loss game. My team vs. your team. I think that's a terrible way to run a country, and would like to see more "reaching-across-the-aisle" from both sides. That's what I meant, that the majority party should consider the minority party stance and perhaps re-evaluate their own ideas. Neither party is correct in every scenario. I didn't mean it as literally as some have taken it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

1:Republicans are doing a pretty good job of ensuring they don't sniff the White House for most of the near future. And if Texas flips, they'll be shut out for a good long while.

2: They've been going down this slippery slope for a while. In 2005, McConnell was going to pull the trigger on this, but the Gang of 14 put on the brakes and agreed to approve all nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. Well now about half of that Gang are out of office and the other half aren't respecting the deal. So, as Slate said, all the deal got the Democrats were a bunch of conservative judges and one big broken promise. Yesterday wasn't quite the watershed moment you want to make it out to be.

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990.

And then California went Democrat. This isn't really helping you.

What makes you think Texas would flip to the Democrats? Not a challenge, but a serious question.

 

[humpback]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

 

[humpback]

1:Republicans are doing a pretty good job of ensuring they don't sniff the White House for most of the near future. And if Texas flips, they'll be shut out for a good long while.

2: They've been going down this slippery slope for a while. In 2005, McConnell was going to pull the trigger on this, but the Gang of 14 put on the brakes and agreed to approve all nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. Well now about half of that Gang are out of office and the other half aren't respecting the deal. So, as Slate said, all the deal got the Democrats were a bunch of conservative judges and one big broken promise. Yesterday wasn't quite the watershed moment you want to make it out to be.

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990.

And then California went Democrat. This isn't really helping you.

What makes you think Texas would flip to the Democrats? Not a challenge, but a serious question.

Demographics (and potential "immigration reform").

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

For the most part, yes.

 

[TheIronSheik]

1:Republicans are doing a pretty good job of ensuring they don't sniff the White House for most of the near future. And if Texas flips, they'll be shut out for a good long while.

2: They've been going down this slippery slope for a while. In 2005, McConnell was going to pull the trigger on this, but the Gang of 14 put on the brakes and agreed to approve all nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. Well now about half of that Gang are out of office and the other half aren't respecting the deal. So, as Slate said, all the deal got the Democrats were a bunch of conservative judges and one big broken promise. Yesterday wasn't quite the watershed moment you want to make it out to be.

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990.

And then California went Democrat. This isn't really helping you.

What makes you think Texas would flip to the Democrats? Not a challenge, but a serious question.

Demographics (and potential "immigration reform").

Is this just speculation, or is it an actual trend that's coming? Texas is pretty solidly red. It would take a pretty big swing to change it's color, I would think.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

That's 100% how the Brits do it. The party running tells you exactly what they'll pass if they win, and once they win (50%+1) every party member is expected to vote for the plan they ran on and they implement it. You can have absolutely huge swings in policy, and see incredible change implemented in a day (Thatcher's early days for example).

We don't really work that way (though we could) since party discipline in the US is sometimes weak and it has flaws (namely that major policy can be reversed back and forth multiple times), but it's viable. The Senate was actually designed in part to prevent that kind of extreme change and moderate policy swings by slowing things down. But the Senate has been dying for some time now and passed away entirely in 20xx (pick ideologically convenient date).

 

[TobiasFunke]

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

You are operating under the false premise that each party takes one side or the other on every single issue or legislation. An R or a D next to a name doesn't bind that person to vote one way or another. If the GOP holds 49 seats in the Senate and every single one of those people advocates, say, a cut to the capital gains tax, they can pay a visit to the most fiscally conservative Democrats from the most fiscally conservative states and convince those Senators to vote with them. If they succeed, great, they can try to get the bill passed. If they fail, then their position doesn't really reflect the will of the people. And if they succeed but the majority party refuses to hold a vote on the legislation, then they at least have powerful ammunition for the next election. They can say that the majority has rejected the will of the people, and since it no longer reflects the will of the people it should no longer be the majority.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

1:Republicans are doing a pretty good job of ensuring they don't sniff the White House for most of the near future. And if Texas flips, they'll be shut out for a good long while.

2: They've been going down this slippery slope for a while. In 2005, McConnell was going to pull the trigger on this, but the Gang of 14 put on the brakes and agreed to approve all nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. Well now about half of that Gang are out of office and the other half aren't respecting the deal. So, as Slate said, all the deal got the Democrats were a bunch of conservative judges and one big broken promise. Yesterday wasn't quite the watershed moment you want to make it out to be.

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990.

And then California went Democrat. This isn't really helping you.

What makes you think Texas would flip to the Democrats? Not a challenge, but a serious question.

Demographics (and potential "immigration reform").

Is this just speculation, or is it an actual trend that's coming? Texas is pretty solidly red. It would take a pretty big swing to change it's color, I would think.

No one knows for sure, but things are trending that way.

IMO here's a good argument that the case is overstated though.

 

[humpback]

1:Republicans are doing a pretty good job of ensuring they don't sniff the White House for most of the near future. And if Texas flips, they'll be shut out for a good long while.

2: They've been going down this slippery slope for a while. In 2005, McConnell was going to pull the trigger on this, but the Gang of 14 put on the brakes and agreed to approve all nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. Well now about half of that Gang are out of office and the other half aren't respecting the deal. So, as Slate said, all the deal got the Democrats were a bunch of conservative judges and one big broken promise. Yesterday wasn't quite the watershed moment you want to make it out to be.

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990.

And then California went Democrat. This isn't really helping you.

What makes you think Texas would flip to the Democrats? Not a challenge, but a serious question.

Demographics (and potential "immigration reform").

Is this just speculation, or is it an actual trend that's coming? Texas is pretty solidly red. It would take a pretty big swing to change it's color, I would think.

Well, projecting trends isn't much more than speculation, but that's what it's based on.

 

[humpback]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

That's 100% how the Brits do it. The party running tells you exactly what they'll pass if they win, and once they win (50%+1) every party member is expected to vote for the plan they ran on and they implement it. You can have absolutely huge swings in policy, and see incredible change implemented in a day (Thatcher's early days for example).

We don't really work that way (though we could) since party discipline in the US is sometimes weak and it has flaws (namely that major policy can be reversed back and forth multiple times), but it's viable. The Senate was actually designed in part to prevent that kind of extreme change and moderate policy swings by slowing things down. But the Senate has been dying for some time now and passed away entirely in 20xx (pick ideologically convenient date).

I know that. I was asking if that's how people wanted it done here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

That's 100% how the Brits do it. The party running tells you exactly what they'll pass if they win, and once they win (50%+1) every party member is expected to vote for the plan they ran on and they implement it. You can have absolutely huge swings in policy, and see incredible change implemented in a day (Thatcher's early days for example).

We don't really work that way (though we could) since party discipline in the US is sometimes weak and it has flaws (namely that major policy can be reversed back and forth multiple times), but it's viable. The Senate was actually designed in part to prevent that kind of extreme change and moderate policy swings by slowing things down. But the Senate has been dying for some time now and passed away entirely in 20xx (pick ideologically convenient date).

I know that. I was asking if that's how people wanted it done here.

I liked the old 'cooling down' Senate. But I'd rather have a Senate that runs hot than doesn't run at all.

 

[humpback]

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

You are operating under the false premise that each party takes one side or the other on every single issue or legislation. An R or a D next to a name doesn't bind that person to vote one way or another. If the GOP holds 49 seats in the Senate and every single one of those people advocates, say, a cut to the capital gains tax, they can pay a visit to the most fiscally conservative Democrats from the most fiscally conservative states and convince those Senators to vote with them. If they succeed, great, they can try to get the bill passed. If they fail, then their position doesn't really reflect the will of the people. And if they succeed but the majority party refuses to hold a vote on the legislation, then they at least have powerful ammunition for the next election. They can say that the majority has rejected the will of the people, and since it no longer reflects the will of the people it should no longer be the majority.

Still doesn't seem to be answering the question.

In any event, I completely disagree with the premise that having a simple majority represents the will of the people, especially considering our election process. It doesn't even take a majority of the popular vote to have a simple majority of elected officials.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

You are operating under the false premise that each party takes one side or the other on every single issue or legislation. An R or a D next to a name doesn't bind that person to vote one way or another. If the GOP holds 49 seats in the Senate and every single one of those people advocates, say, a cut to the capital gains tax, they can pay a visit to the most fiscally conservative Democrats from the most fiscally conservative states and convince those Senators to vote with them. If they succeed, great, they can try to get the bill passed. If they fail, then their position doesn't really reflect the will of the people. And if they succeed but the majority party refuses to hold a vote on the legislation, then they at least have powerful ammunition for the next election. They can say that the majority has rejected the will of the people, and since it no longer reflects the will of the people it should no longer be the majority.

Still doesn't seem to be answering the question.

In any event, I completely disagree with the premise that having a simple majority represents the will of the people, especially considering our election process. It doesn't even take a majority of the popular vote to have a simple majority of elected officials.

The point is that it's not a powerless vote just because of your political party. It's only a powerless vote if it doesn't reflect the views of a majority of Senators representing their states' interests, which is exactly what the Constitution intends.

 

[humpback]

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

You are operating under the false premise that each party takes one side or the other on every single issue or legislation. An R or a D next to a name doesn't bind that person to vote one way or another. If the GOP holds 49 seats in the Senate and every single one of those people advocates, say, a cut to the capital gains tax, they can pay a visit to the most fiscally conservative Democrats from the most fiscally conservative states and convince those Senators to vote with them. If they succeed, great, they can try to get the bill passed. If they fail, then their position doesn't really reflect the will of the people. And if they succeed but the majority party refuses to hold a vote on the legislation, then they at least have powerful ammunition for the next election. They can say that the majority has rejected the will of the people, and since it no longer reflects the will of the people it should no longer be the majority.

Still doesn't seem to be answering the question.

In any event, I completely disagree with the premise that having a simple majority represents the will of the people, especially considering our election process. It doesn't even take a majority of the popular vote to have a simple majority of elected officials.

The point is that it's not a powerless vote just because of your political party. It's only a powerless vote if it doesn't reflect the views of a majority of Senators representing their states' interests, which is exactly what the Constitution intends.

Again, not addressing the question. Oh, well.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

You are operating under the false premise that each party takes one side or the other on every single issue or legislation. An R or a D next to a name doesn't bind that person to vote one way or another. If the GOP holds 49 seats in the Senate and every single one of those people advocates, say, a cut to the capital gains tax, they can pay a visit to the most fiscally conservative Democrats from the most fiscally conservative states and convince those Senators to vote with them. If they succeed, great, they can try to get the bill passed. If they fail, then their position doesn't really reflect the will of the people. And if they succeed but the majority party refuses to hold a vote on the legislation, then they at least have powerful ammunition for the next election. They can say that the majority has rejected the will of the people, and since it no longer reflects the will of the people it should no longer be the majority.

Still doesn't seem to be answering the question.

In any event, I completely disagree with the premise that having a simple majority represents the will of the people, especially considering our election process. It doesn't even take a majority of the popular vote to have a simple majority of elected officials.

The point is that it's not a powerless vote just because of your political party. It's only a powerless vote if it doesn't reflect the views of a majority of Senators representing their states' interests, which is exactly what the Constitution intends.

Again, not addressing the question. Oh, well.

I say this way too much but just because you don't like an answer does not mean that an answer wasn't given.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

You are operating under the false premise that each party takes one side or the other on every single issue or legislation. An R or a D next to a name doesn't bind that person to vote one way or another. If the GOP holds 49 seats in the Senate and every single one of those people advocates, say, a cut to the capital gains tax, they can pay a visit to the most fiscally conservative Democrats from the most fiscally conservative states and convince those Senators to vote with them. If they succeed, great, they can try to get the bill passed. If they fail, then their position doesn't really reflect the will of the people. And if they succeed but the majority party refuses to hold a vote on the legislation, then they at least have powerful ammunition for the next election. They can say that the majority has rejected the will of the people, and since it no longer reflects the will of the people it should no longer be the majority.

Still doesn't seem to be answering the question.

In any event, I completely disagree with the premise that having a simple majority represents the will of the people, especially considering our election process. It doesn't even take a majority of the popular vote to have a simple majority of elected officials.

The point is that it's not a powerless vote just because of your political party. It's only a powerless vote if it doesn't reflect the views of a majority of Senators representing their states' interests, which is exactly what the Constitution intends.

Again, not addressing the question. Oh, well.

I guess I don't know what the question is? I'll go straight to the source

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

No, for the reasons explained multiple times.

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

Yes, with a caveat: I believe that whatever the House and Senate decide the rules should be, that's what the rules should be (so long as it's constitutional). If they want to pass legislation on a simple majority, then I think legislation should pass on a simple majority. It's obvious that hyper-partisanship has exploded and made it impossible to accomplish anything substantial, so it's time to try something new. If we don't like the results, then one party's candidates can campaign on a promise to change those rules and we can elect them (yes, parties campaign on "self-defeating" promises and win- see the 1994 GOP Congress that campaigned on term limits).

 

[TheIronSheik]

1:Republicans are doing a pretty good job of ensuring they don't sniff the White House for most of the near future. And if Texas flips, they'll be shut out for a good long while.

2: They've been going down this slippery slope for a while. In 2005, McConnell was going to pull the trigger on this, but the Gang of 14 put on the brakes and agreed to approve all nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. Well now about half of that Gang are out of office and the other half aren't respecting the deal. So, as Slate said, all the deal got the Democrats were a bunch of conservative judges and one big broken promise. Yesterday wasn't quite the watershed moment you want to make it out to be.

Pretty sure the same thing was being said of Democrats back in 1990.

And then California went Democrat. This isn't really helping you.

What makes you think Texas would flip to the Democrats? Not a challenge, but a serious question.

Demographics and a butt-load of projections.

I've read some stuff, from Silver maybe, that people are being overly optimistic on it. The central idea is that the hispanic community is growing faster than the average and in 5-15 years time have outgrown everyone else enough that the state will swing Democrat. Silver's criticism of it, IIRC, is that Texas hispanics are much more conservative than the demographic as a whole and so it may stay Republican for a while longer yet.

In any case, that's the theory.

Interesting. That actually makes sense.

 

[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.

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?

I don't have faith in the GOP either. I love the filibuster. I wish even less could get done in DC. It is an out of control cluster-####. Until politicians get a flame under their butts to do the right thing, I have Zero faith in any of them.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

I do think that most legislation should be passed with a simple majority. But that's not really the point. Let's say that I'm entirely agnostic about whether most legislation should require a majority or a supermajority to pass. I'm not, but pretend I am.

The Constitution requires a simple majority except in specific circumstances. If you want all legislation to require a supermajority, there is only one appropriate way to change that. Which is to change the Constitution so as to require it. To craft additional anti-majoritarian rules that require MORE than what is required by the Constitution is inappropriate

If you want to create rules that limit the power of government, use the instrument that is designed to limit the power of government.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I do think that most legislation should be passed with a simple majority. But that's not really the point. Let's say that I'm entirely agnostic about whether most legislation should require a majority or a supermajority to pass. I'm not, but pretend I am.

The Constitution requires a simple majority except in specific circumstances. If you want all legislation to require a supermajority, there is only one appropriate way to change that. Which is to change the Constitution so as to require it. To craft additional anti-majoritarian rules that require MORE than what is required by the Constitution is inappropriate

If you want to create rules that limit the power of government, use the instrument that is designed to limit the power of government.

The problem is that the Constitution is too difficult to amend. And there's no constitutional remedy for that. "You should amend the Constitution to make it easier to amend the Constitution." "I can't, it's too hard."

 

[The Z Machine]

It's about this time that someone should suggest a parliamentary system in lieu of the non-functioning POS that we have now.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I do think that most legislation should be passed with a simple majority. But that's not really the point. Let's say that I'm entirely agnostic about whether most legislation should require a majority or a supermajority to pass. I'm not, but pretend I am.

The Constitution requires a simple majority except in specific circumstances. If you want all legislation to require a supermajority, there is only one appropriate way to change that. Which is to change the Constitution so as to require it. To craft additional anti-majoritarian rules that require MORE than what is required by the Constitution is inappropriate

If you want to create rules that limit the power of government, use the instrument that is designed to limit the power of government.

The problem is that the Constitution is too difficult to amend. And there's no constitutional remedy for that. "You should amend the Constitution to make it easier to amend the Constitution." "I can't, it's too hard."

Yes. That's absolutely a problem with the Constitution. You know I think there are lot of stupid things in the Constitution. I don't fetishize it. If I had my way, we wouldn't give Rhode Island the same representation in the Senate as California and I'd do away with the electoral college.

But that's the system we've got.

I certainly don't propose a "rule" where the Electoral College chooses the President, but only the winner of the popular vote is submitted to the Electoral College. And that's akin to what these Senate rules do. They fundamentally alter the scheme of governance codified in the Constitution.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

I do think that most legislation should be passed with a simple majority. But that's not really the point. Let's say that I'm entirely agnostic about whether most legislation should require a majority or a supermajority to pass. I'm not, but pretend I am.

The Constitution requires a simple majority except in specific circumstances. If you want all legislation to require a supermajority, there is only one appropriate way to change that. Which is to change the Constitution so as to require it. To craft additional anti-majoritarian rules that require MORE than what is required by the Constitution is inappropriate

If you want to create rules that limit the power of government, use the instrument that is designed to limit the power of government.

Yup.

 

[cstu]

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 just nitpicking. No one is suggesting a majority vote on changing the Constitution.

 

[jon_mx]

I love limiting the power of paid-for whores in DC.

 

[Statorama]

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.

I think there's a lot of truth in this.

 

[Todd Andrews]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

It always has just required a simple majority to pass, unless filibustered. And legislation can still be filibsutered.

What are you talking about?

 

[humpback]

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

You are operating under the false premise that each party takes one side or the other on every single issue or legislation. An R or a D next to a name doesn't bind that person to vote one way or another. If the GOP holds 49 seats in the Senate and every single one of those people advocates, say, a cut to the capital gains tax, they can pay a visit to the most fiscally conservative Democrats from the most fiscally conservative states and convince those Senators to vote with them. If they succeed, great, they can try to get the bill passed. If they fail, then their position doesn't really reflect the will of the people. And if they succeed but the majority party refuses to hold a vote on the legislation, then they at least have powerful ammunition for the next election. They can say that the majority has rejected the will of the people, and since it no longer reflects the will of the people it should no longer be the majority.

Still doesn't seem to be answering the question.

In any event, I completely disagree with the premise that having a simple majority represents the will of the people, especially considering our election process. It doesn't even take a majority of the popular vote to have a simple majority of elected officials.

The point is that it's not a powerless vote just because of your political party. It's only a powerless vote if it doesn't reflect the views of a majority of Senators representing their states' interests, which is exactly what the Constitution intends.

Again, not addressing the question. Oh, well.

I say this way too much but just because you don't like an answer does not mean that an answer wasn't given.

Admittedly there are several tangents going on in here, but my questions were: do you believe that a simple majority represents the will of the people, and should that be enough to be able to do whatever you want whenever you want? He has since answered, but not with those prior posts.

 

[humpback]

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?

It was in response to Tasker's comment that "one party shouldn't make all the decisions." I think Tobias's point was crystal clear, but if you'd like I will expand upon it.

As a question of how we design our government, what should happen if one party wins control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislature? Should the minority party be able to stop that government from governing, or should our government be designed so that the majority party controls the agenda? The Constitution seems pretty clear on this. The majority party controls so long as it does not act in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional.

And Tobias is asking "Why on Earth would it be otherwise?"

Because a simple majority is not "the will of (all) the people".

You really believe that being in the 49% should leave you completely shut out of the process?

You are not shut out of the process. Nobody is throwing you in jail for speaking out against Chief Justice Nader (crossing my fingers!). Every Republican Senator is given the same vote as every Democrat on every confirmation and every piece of legislation.

Republican Senators can even go talk to their counterparts and voice their concerns. But then we have a vote and one side gets their way and the other side puts on their big boy pants and talks about the next issue.

So not being thrown in jail, being able to cast a symbolic but powerless vote, and talking about the next issue that you also don't have the power to do anything about isn't being shut out of the process?

Okay, forget "shut out" then- you really believe that all legislation should only require a simple majority to pass?

I do think that most legislation should be passed with a simple majority. But that's not really the point. Let's say that I'm entirely agnostic about whether most legislation should require a majority or a supermajority to pass. I'm not, but pretend I am.

The Constitution requires a simple majority except in specific circumstances. If you want all legislation to require a supermajority, there is only one appropriate way to change that. Which is to change the Constitution so as to require it. To craft additional anti-majoritarian rules that require MORE than what is required by the Constitution is inappropriate

If you want to create rules that limit the power of government, use the instrument that is designed to limit the power of government.

I think we're talking past each other. I'm simply discussing a general philosophy, not the inner workings of how to implement specific changes or what they should be.