It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
DrEugeneFixer
xuenchen
I think these nominee conformations should require a 2/3 majority vote.
That way the unbiased integrity stays intact.
I also think legislation should require 2/3.
Single party rule is dangerous.
Yep, the only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny by a minority.
butcherguy
When you don't require the 2/3, a whole lot of bad can happen.
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.
BobM88
So being unable to get 60% to confirm a nominee is "tyranny by a minority"?
BobM88
60% is not a lot
BomSquad
And this is how the tyranny of the majority begins...
there are reasons that certain things require a super majority, like constitutional changes
DrEugeneFixer
Being able to stop the senate from doing its constitutional duty with only 40 guys is tyranny by a minority.
DrEugeneFixer
40 is even fewer.
DrEugeneFixer
butcherguy
When you don't require the 2/3, a whole lot of bad can happen.
I can see where you're coming from, but that's not the system that the founding fathers created for us. Bad luck for you, I guess.
butcherguy
Funny, when Reid was in the minority, he thought the 'nuclear option' was a terrible thing.
But he is all good with it now.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), Thursday:
"It reminds [the American people] of the power grab. It reminds them of the way Democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else... Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate."
Then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R), May 2005:
"The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedence to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It's time to move away from ... advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent."
Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R) in a statement, Thursday:
"The Democrats' attempt to pivot at a time when we should be focused on protecting the American people from dropped health care coverage makes their true motives clear. They will do anything to take the attention off the failure that is Obamacare, even if it means breaking the rules of the Senate in a raw exercise of partisan political power."
Sen. John Cornyn (R) in a New York Times letter to the editor, March 2005:
"You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as 'nuclear.'"
lovebeck
I'm officially at a loss for words...Changing the U.S. one "law" at a time.
Washington Post Article
DrEugeneFixer
Being able to stop the senate from doing its constitutional duty with only 40 guys is tyranny by a minority.