Washington Post: Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominee

reply to post by butcherguy


And if you still don't understand the difference...

On December 6, 2012, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal. Without giving a lengthy speech, he invoked the rules of filibuster on his bill to raise the passage threshold to 60 votes.

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) chose to call a vote on the proposal regardless, McConnell immediately invoked the rules of filibusters on his own proposal, effectively doing the first self-filibuster in Senate history.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is legitimate political debate...and there is that frothing at the mouth guy on the corner screaming about apocalypse and Jesus.

The GOP in DC have jumped the shark by any historical measure.

This RULE CHANGE is a return to the Constitutional design of the Senate.

If the GOP abhor it so much, then I expect them to return to a 2/3rds majority vote if they ever gain the majority in the Senate again?

reply to post by Indigo5

Sure I did?

No, you didn't.
Good thing you used a question mark.

I am not interested in why they did it.
Here is a question. Try to focus in on it and answer it.

Were the Democrats uninformed, or were they lying when they made those statements then?

The statements they made were:

Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. ... What is involved here is a power grab."

Please?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So your stance is that it is ok as long as it is not used too much?

In the past, filibustering nominees was always motivated by someone's concern about the nominee.

What the GOP has done is say eff-it, block ALL OF THEM...and only relent when the Democrats give them some other unrelated demand.

The tactic has no historical comparison. It is unprecedented.

A brake pedal is a useful "tool", but when the driver slams on the breaks and brings the car to a stop in the middle of a busy highway and starts screaming demands at the people in the traffic jam behind him, someone needs to take his car keys from him.

Indigo5


And if you still don't understand the difference...

It is always different.

reply to post by Indigo5


So, it is fine, if used under your guidelines of "good".

What a joke.

reply to post by macman


Ah well, the precedent has been set. When the Democrats lose the majority-ship of the Senate, and can't filibuster judicial and executive nominees from a GOP President, they'll cry foul.

Some here have their heads in the sand if they think the Democrats will retain the majority and the Presidency forever. It could be in a couple years, it could be in 20...but it will happen.

reply to post by butcherguy


I did answer the question...repeatedly. At this stage it appears trolling by you?

In order for you to equate what the Democrats or Republicans said at the time in 2005 to 2013...you must assume no difference and there is a dramatic, historically unprecedented difference.

Otherwise...the Democrats were neither "uninformed" nor "lying" in 2005, but rather speaking accurately about a GOP threatening the Nuclear Option because just a few of the Presidents Nominees were filibustered as opposed to the current administration having more nominees filibustered than ALL past Presidents combined.

Or as you put...you don't care about "why"..

reply to post by Indigo5

I am disappointed with you.
I expected more.

But to call me a troll? That is sad.

I made it as simple as I could for you.

BobM88

Some here have their heads in the sand if they think the Democrats will retain the majority and the Presidency forever. It could be in a couple years, it could be in 20...but it will happen.

Oh the Democrats certainly will not maintain the majority and Presidency forever, nor should they.

But the party that succeeds them will not be the current GOP...perhaps in name, but not in ideology or platform.

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I am disappointed with you.
I expected more.

But to call me a troll? That is sad.

I made it as simple as I could for you.

And the irony is you continue? Alas, what does this post have to do with the question you asked, which I patiently and repeatedly answered? what does this post have to do with the topic at all apart from confirming what I said "appeared" to be trolling?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


You may not understand the gravity of this change and its myriad implications, but others here do. Ignorantly defying the observations in this thread will not make the rule change any less destructive.

In more specific terms, you not addressing several problems with this issue. The ability of the Senate to make its own rules is the epitome of tyranny by majority vote. If you don't see a problem with that, you lack fundamental understanding of government and human nature.

Not to mention, the very same Democrat politicians responsible for this change were on the other side of this exact same scenario back in 2005, and the outcry against the rule change was melodramatic and ongoing. Rightly so, though in 2005 the change had only been suggested, not enacted. Videos of that outcry have been provided in this thread.

In other other posts you made it obvious that you don't comprehend the potential of tyrannical majority (or you don't care so long as you are in that majority). You went so far as to say this:

DrEugeneFixer
"Being able to stop the senate from doing its constitutional duty with only 40 guys is tyranny by a minority."

That statement is absurd. The 60% minimum is the mathematical solution to tyranny by majority. For your statement to be true, appointments would have to require only 40% of the votes to proceed.
The constitutional duty of the Senate is to nominate and approve appointees who are acceptable to both the majority and the minority. That's the whole point -- to find middle ground. The majority gets to pick the nominees, but they must be acceptable to the minority.

DrEugeneFixer
"Bad luck for you, I guess."

Your childish attitude towards matters that affect over 300 million people is maddening, but all too common among progressive Democrats. If a person behaves like a child, why should anyone believe they have legitimate opinions to contribute?

reply to post by Indigo5


They could be *more* over the top conservative. Worse, they could be neo-cons like Bush. Wouldn't that be a trip? A Bush like administration with straight majority power to appoint whomever they want. heh.

BobM88
reply to post by Indigo5

 

They could be *more* over the top conservative. Worse, they could be neo-cons like Bush. Wouldn't that be a trip? A Bush like administration with straight majority power to appoint whomever they want. heh.

Could be, but unlikely. As the GOP has slid further to the right, the populace has consolidated in the middle. It's why the GOP has lost the majority vote in every Presidential election in the past 24 years with the exception of Bush vs. Kerry in 2004.

Even with Pres. Bush, I would contend he was only a "neo-con" by contamination of the strong neo-cons he surrounded himself with and the opportunity that 9-11 afforded those neo-cons. He got elected not on a neo-con agenda, but on an agenda that would be considered offensive to modern day conservatives...the idea of "Compassionate Conservatism".

OpenMindedRealist

The constitutional duty of the Senate is to nominate and approve appointees who are acceptable to both the majority and the minority. That's the whole point -- to find middle ground. The majority gets to pick the nominees, but they must be acceptable to the minority.

You are incorrect here.

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution grants the PRESIDENT the power to nominate appointees with the "advice and consent" of the senate.

And while the Constitution demands 2/3rds consent for Treaties, it leaves appointees nominated by the President at a simple majority. For appointments, a simple majority of Senators are needed to pass a motion "to advise and consent".

The 2/3rds rule being applied to presidential nominees is a "Rule" enacted by Senators themselves, not a constitutional provision.

We can debate opinions, but let's not edit the constitution to suit our opinions.

reply to post by Indigo5


In my attempt to simplify the process, I may have left room for misinterpretation.

Yes, the President nominates Presidential appointees. In a scenario where the President represents the minority party, the other party will obviously have their say because they hold the majority of votes in the confirmation process. Today, we have a President representing the majority of the Senate, meaning that party (Senators working with the President) chooses the nominees. Without requiring a 60% minimum for confirmation, the minority is effectively silenced in this situation.

As far as the 2/3 majority rule for appointments, I did not state and don't think I implied it is Constitutional law. It is in the spirit of the Constitution, though, which is why it has been procedural rule for so long.

reply to post by Indigo5


Terrible analogy about breaking in the middle of the highway. Going less than 20 mph then the posted speed limit on highways throughout the country is illegal, so doing what you said in your response will already get you in trouble.

The reasons for using a tool are irrelevant. If it is in your disposal of available tools to use, you don't need to justify its use. Whether or not the Republicans are using this tool to just be obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist is besides the point. It is available for their use and changing the rules because it is getting in the way of your agenda is pretty shady. Maybe I'd have a little more respect for this change if it was enacted by the Republicans (since they are the minority party) or if it were to be enacted right before Obama and co left office so they couldn't take direct advantage of the consequences of this law. However, neither of these two things are the case. I'd have just as little respect for this rule change if it were the Republicans in charge and pushing it through (which will probably happen when they get in power and Democrats start filibustering the things that are still allowed to be filibustered)

jimmyx
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

what the president is trying to do IS HIS JOB!...he appoints federal judges, THAT'S HIS JOB!...he gets to appoint his own cabinet leaders, THAT'S HIS JOB!...it's under his constitutional powers, it's under his job decription...what's wrong with you?...I don't like the judges that bush appointed, but I don 't think it was a government takeover....geez, hyperbolic much???

edit on 22-11-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Are you that blind, or simply ignoring the facts? This president is trying to change the country most of us love...and for the worse. He is trying to become THE one in control instead of the people. The war between the two parties will always exist and should. They represent (literally) the views of ALL the people in the country. And EVERY VIEW, much like every vote, should count. While YOUR president and maybe you would rather that those opposed to this just shut up...these representatives are there to assure we aren't and represent us.

So just because you don't like it...we are still represented. Example. Obama is currently trying to put two of his minion on the DC Appeals Court, changing the current 50/50 opinion of 50/50 of the American people in his favor. Again...trying to get his way to cram things down EVERYONE'S throat. And that DOES include our 50% of the country.

So...like it or not. You share this country with 50% that disagree with you. Live with it and tell you representatives to DEAL WITH IT...NOT try to STEAL IT!.

PS: Since I assume you are against the "Tea Party" nut cases...remember...they represent a percentage of the people, as do every different group. We are ALL represented pretty much fairly in percentages. YOU and YOUR president are trying to shut these people up (and out) of the system. Don't you find that...ummm...BIGOTED? You know...excluding some people just because you don't like them???

jimmyx

BobM88
reply to post by OptimusCrime

 

well, they'll be against a simple majority then.

Hell, while we're at it, why not change the process for constitutional amendments so that it only requires a simple majority too? /sarc

The few people in this thread that are for this will scream bloody murder when a Republican President and Senate are confirming nominees with simple majorities.

what democrat, liberal, independent, or for that matter republican, think that when the republicans get the majority of the senate, THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO THE SAME THING...especially when a democrat is the president......hello?, raise your hands...anyone?...anyone?...bueller?....bueller?.....there have been so many nominated by Obama and automatically rejected by threatening filibuster, and the republicans(s) who did it, gave no viable reason. the republican majority in the house took the filibuster to a whole new level never seen in the history of the congress.

You better go check your facts and start with the last president, I'm pretty sure he was rejected more. You'r entire argument is based off nothing but thoughts in your own head and no facts. BTW, Bueller is at a baseball game.

LeatherNLace
It's about damn time! Good for Reid, too bad it took him so long. I can guarantee that if the Republiklansmen had a simple majority in the Senate, they would have already changed the rule themselves; especially if they were facing the unprecedented obstructionism the Democrats are currently facing.

Have you ever heard of checks and balances?

If you look up the word "check" in your handy dictionary, here is the first definition...

to stop or arrest the motion of suddenly or forcibly: He checked the horse at the edge of the cliff.

Hmmmm. That kind of sounds like "Obstruct"

to block or close up with an obstacle; make difficult to pass: Debris obstructed the road.

You see. This country was not set up as a dictatorship where one man gives orders and everyone hops to it. If someone goes nuts, the rest of the government is supposed to obstruct so they can't behave like a dictator. That was the whole point of different branches and more than one party. Get it. The founders didn't want Obama and the Democrats running the country unobstructed.