Senate Democrats Eliminate Filibusters on Judicial and Executive Nominees

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tex117 said:
Typical Neo-gaf.

You do realize that at least one of the D.C. Circuit appointments was originally blocked by the Democrats because Bush appointed him?
Click to expand...

not the same as blocking every single nomination the current president has made, for no other reason than to gum up the works.

kirblar said:
It's been a problem on both sides. GOP has been worse, but no one has clean hands here. That's why change has been so hard- both sides wanted access while in the minority.
Click to expand...

no it hasn't. fuck this lazy, uninformed "fair and balanced" thinking.

exec%20noms%20filibusters.jpg

the obstruction that has happened in the past 4 years is unprecedented.
 
The democrats are largely to blame for how the filibuster is now being used. They started this crap in 2003 so naturally angry republicans followed suit. Regardless, they should *not* change the law here...both parties need to stop acting like spoiled brats.

Also: even worse than the proposed filibuster change is the change from 2/3 vote to simple majority....
 
Wilsongt said:
Fox News Breaking News alert: "SENATE DEMS WIN VOTE TO CHANGE FILIBUSTER, WEAKENING MINORITY PARTY'S POWER TO BLOCK NOMINEES"

Weakening? No. Preventing Senate Republicans from being giant cunts to anything related to an Obama appointee. You know... making sure the government actually fucking works and empty seats get filled like they're suppose to.
Click to expand...

There's definite value in having a minority with the power to oppose the motions of the majority. Having a majority party that can just operate freely and change whatever they would like in a country where the party in power changes so frequently (and are so ideologically opposed) is dangerous. As BakedSardine said, it leads to instability.

That being said, elections should have consequences and it had become increasingly clear that the filibuster was being abused by the minority when it came to federal appointees. It's original intention was to force increased deliberation on critical appointments, not used to grind the gears of government to a screeching halt while a party waits to regain power.
 
crozier said:
The democrats are largely to blame for how the filibuster is now being used. They started this crap in 2003 so naturally angry republicans followed suit. Regardless, they should *not* change the law here...both parties need to stop acting like spoiled brats.

Also: even worse than the proposed filibuster change is the change from 2/3 vote to simple majority....
Click to expand...

Cloture requires 3/5, not 2/3.
 
crozier said:
The democrats are largely to blame for how the filibuster is now being used. They started this crap in 2003 so naturally angry republicans followed suit. Regardless, they should *not* change the law here...both parties need to stop acting like spoiled brats.

Also: even worse than the proposed filibuster change is the change from 2/3 vote to simple majority....
Click to expand...

killing-filibuster.jpg
 
crozier said:
The democrats are largely to blame for how the filibuster is now being used. They started this crap in 2003 so naturally angry republicans followed suit. Regardless, they should *not* change the law here...both parties need to stop acting like spoiled brats.

Also: even worse than the proposed filibuster change is the change from 2/3 vote to simple majority....
Click to expand...

Great, but that won't happen so what should be done if they refuse to stop acting that way?
 
Tex117 said:
Typical Neo-gaf.

You do realize that at least one of the D.C. Circuit appointments was originally blocked by the Democrats because Bush appointed him?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/republicans-shouldn-t-let-obama-pack-the-courts.html
Click to expand...

Yes. And in the negotiation dems agreed to allow bush's nominees through if they're not extreme. And they followed through on the promise.

The gop refuses to allow anyone through. And the court lacking claim is bullshit. It's the law to fill those seats. The GOP is court packing by denying that.
 
Love the Fox News headline

"Reid, Dems push through change in senate rules to weaken minority"

Because the one thing republicans fight against is weakening minorities.
 
crozier said:
The democrats are largely to blame for how the filibuster is now being used. They started this crap in 2003 so naturally angry republicans followed suit. Regardless, they should *not* change the law here...both parties need to stop acting like spoiled brats.

Also: even worse than the proposed filibuster change is the change from 2/3 vote to simple majority....
Click to expand...

Mmm, I love the smell of false equivalency in the morning!
 
'filibuster', 'nuclear option' the language you guys use for politics makes it seem like you have a very war oriented political system.
 
Soo I'm still not totally clear on this. Does the lessened vote requirement only apply to overriding the threat of a veto (i.e. if you actually want to get up and talk you can still do it), or does it lower the vote requirement period for minor nominees?

I think the filibuster can still be an important tool, but it does need to be reformed so that you actually have to mean the shit (i.e. actually be willing to get up there and pee in your pants for days on end) rather than just being able to threaten to filibuster.

I definitely would be worried if the majority started removing all filibuster abilities period, like for legislation and supreme court nominees. But again, if you want to filibuster you should also actually have to filibuster.

Overall I think this is good news as long as its not used as a precedent for more radical/substantial weakening of the minority.
 
pants said:
'filibuster', 'nuclear option' the language you guys use for politics makes it seem like you have a very war oriented political system.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that? Just because we have a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on terror, etc. War is all we know.
 
Hell. Yes. The filibuster is a cancer on our legislative system. I'm just sad they didn't do away with it altogether.

And yes, I'd be saying this if the Republicans were a majority in the Senate.
 
speculawyer said:
What makes you think that? Just because we have a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on terror, etc. War is all we know.
Click to expand...

Yeah I realize you guys get into a lot of wars, I guess i find it weird that you guys so readily accept and respond to that kind of rhetoric/language. I'd feel extremely uncomfortable being a voter in this system \o/
 
Amibguous Cad said:
Hell. Yes. The filibuster is a cancer on our legislative system. I'm just sad they didn't do away with it altogether.

And yes, I'd be saying this if the Republicans were a majority in the Senate.
Click to expand...

I dunno, even if it were stripped of most of its actual power it can still be a powerful way to voice extreme displeasure with the majority (see: Strom Thurmond v Civil Rights lol, or for a happier example the filibuster in Texas over abortion restrictions recently)
 
False equivalence is really getting tiring. It gets really obnoxious hearing people who don't know the first thing about politics blaming "both sides" because that sounds sort of reasonable in a clueless-person kind of way.
 
Arkos said:
I dunno, even if it were stripped of most of its actual power it can still be a powerful way to voice extreme displeasure with the majority (see: Strom Thurmond v Civil Rights lol, or for a happier example the filibuster in Texas over abortion restrictions recently)
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the filibuster as it was exercised up until, say, Bush, was a good way to prevent the majority from running amok. Alas, the restrictions on its abuses were not codified into law, but were largely a matter of custom and respect, and those customs have been slowly chipped away - by both parties, to be clear. Requiring a 3/5ths supermajority for every appointment and piece of legislation, particularly in a body as unrepresentative as the Senate, is something the founders certainly did not intend and which is terrible for the nation. There are more than enough Madisonian checks on majority power (not the least of which, again, is the unrepresentative Senate) to do away with the filibuster.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
Hell. Yes. The filibuster is a cancer on our legislative system. I'm just sad they didn't do away with it altogether.

And yes, I'd be saying this if the Republicans were a majority in the Senate.
Click to expand...

A-yup. It's been abused up and down, and I'm glad to see that we're not afraid to start closing the books on bad policy.
 
Arkos said:
I dunno, even if it were stripped of most of its actual power it can still be a powerful way to voice extreme displeasure with the majority (see: Strom Thurmond v Civil Rights lol, or for a happier example the filibuster in Texas over abortion restrictions recently)
Click to expand...

I do agree but the filibuster wasn't even being done so much as it was a trump card for the minority. The Republicans in the Senate didn't even have to actually filibuster anything, or at least the was no actual filibustering on the senate floor, save the sensationalist expositions like that of Senator Cruz's recent episode.

It had become a loop hole that was, in my opinion, abused.

The fact that within 48hrs of Obama's election, that turtle-looking motherfucker Senator McConnel came out and said the republican mission would be to torpedo anything and everything they could from this administration... they never wanted to compromise. Obstructionist tactics enveloped with insincere efforts to find middle ground.
 
I should also say that I'll miss the opportunities for political theatre which the filibuster gives rise to, despite the derogatory name. High-profile filibusters like Rand Paul's filibustering on the NSA, or Davis' on abortion, can bring to light abuses that wouldn't get attention otherwise, and bring publicity to worthy causes. But at this point, it's doing more harm than good.
 
Grassley , 2005:

“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60."


McConnell , 2005:

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. ... [Democrats] want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”
 
Amibguous Cad said:
I should also say that I'll miss the opportunities for political theatre which the filibuster gives rise to, despite the derogatory name. High-profile filibusters like Rand Paul's filibustering on the NSA, or Davis' on abortion, can bring to light abuses that wouldn't get attention otherwise, and bring publicity to worthy causes. But at this point, it's doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...
I would much rather have a universal talking filibuster rather than this tactical nuke.
That procedural crap (which you can still use for legislation) is just terrible.
 
Good. This was long, lonnnnng overdue. I hope SCOTUS and legislation comes next.

Although there's still the problem of the House. We all had better vote next year...
 
I'm fine with this. Vacant seats need to be filled. If those who fill them suck - they will be replaced. On the other hand, I'm shaking my head that Biden used to oppose this until democrats got control and today he said he supports it. So its a case of "I dont want to give anyone power but my friends". Not exactly noble. I'm glad its not the republicans but there is a degree of double standard happening. To be fair, neither side wants to give the other more power so it doesn't come as a shock - I just thought he'd be a guy to stick to previous beliefs and not change them only when it benefits his party.
 
Good. Regardless of the outcry, the rules in the Senate needed to change. Blocking all court appointed nominees is not sustainable for either side. We should not need a DDD or RRR super majority in the Senate to get things done.
 
Partial Gamification said:
I do agree but the filibuster wasn't even being done so much as it was a trump card for the minority. The Republicans in the Senate didn't even have to actually filibuster anything, or at least the was no actual filibustering on the senate floor, save the sensationalist expositions like that of Senator Cruz's recent episode.

It had become a loop hole that was, in my opinion, abused.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that, it definitely needs to be reformed, I just feel like it can still be an important tool if used appropriately. Honestly, the filibuster should be the "nuclear option" in the first place
 
Amibguous Cad said:
I should also say that I'll miss the opportunities for political theatre which the filibuster gives rise to, despite the derogatory name. High-profile filibusters like Rand Paul's filibustering on the NSA, or Davis' on abortion, can bring to light abuses that wouldn't get attention otherwise, and bring publicity to worthy causes. But at this point, it's doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...
These will still happen. This move only affects votes on executive and judicial appointees, not legislation.
 
The GOP should be thrilled. They have a pretty good shot of taking the senate in 2014.

Even with that in mind I'm happy this finally happened. I was willing to let Bill Frist nuke the filibuster back in 2005 because I figured one day Democrats would take the senate back. Everyone wins. Good riddance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2024 Academy Awards Nominees
2 3
115
9K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Cart Narcs is the best. (come on in and enjoy the videos)
31
272
Kenneth Haight replied
I'm drunk and pondering life on this planet
30
691
Plies replied
Is This Thing On? movie with Will Arnett lead and story, with Bradley Cooper directing.
13
199
Men_in_Boxes replied
US air traffic control still runs on Windows 95 and floppy disks
2
60
1K
YCoCg replied
Top Bottom