When it's election time next year, ACA website issues will all be forgotten and the many of the benefits of ACA will be in effect, I think that's going to make a big difference.
Senate Democrats Eliminate Filibusters on Judicial and Executive Nominees
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
When it's election time next year, ACA website issues will all be forgotten and the many of the benefits of ACA will be in effect, I think that's going to make a big difference.
It is true.
That's of executive nominees, i.e. persons being appointed to fill positions in the administration. What about judicial nominees? I have only this source, not personal knowledge, but in this article, Sen. Lamar Alexander says the Democrats filibustered five of Bush's federal circuit judge nominees, and the Republicans have only filibustered two of Obama's.
Just interested in the subject. I know better than to trust stats, graphs, statements from biased sources. I suspect Alexander's numbers are correct in a way, but don't tell the whole story. Same with that graph above.
/
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
Eh, you still seem to have an entrenched pessimistic view of the system (not that I blame you lol)
Yes, politicians will use whatever tools they have at their disposal to achieve their desired public policy goals. But they can still be legitimately interested in discussing the best way to achieve those public policy goals, or why those goals should even be goals in the first place.
You say that "'serving the public' is a vague statement that doesn't mean anything as using those powers can be serving the public that elected them." But that's your own restrictive view of what "serving the public" means. Yes, one view is that it means simply exercising the powers that the people elected you to wield, in order to enact the policies that the largest group of people that elected you support. Another is that it means taking the time and effort to decide on what course of action would actually serve their constituents best, sometimes to the constituents protests. That's where elections and party discipline becomes a big problem.
And as for your final point about the filibuster, I'm not sure I follow. One thing that it can do is give politicians an incentive to act differently from the way that you elected them to act, but that's not the only thing it can do. And I'm sure you would agree that sometimes you would like for politicians to act in a way that is contrary to what you might have initially elected them to do.
Not using Obamacare anymore, huh? It was cool, until it wasn't.
Anticitizen One
Banned
Dems are suck fucking pussies. Just fucking do it and show these hick republicans who's boss over here.
Shake Appeal
Member
This is the fucking best.
SteveWinwood
Member
dead souls
Member
About goddamn time.
You know who used the term Obamacare? Childish people, or people purposely using it to make fun or in rebuttal of said childish people.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Seriously?
Obama himself endorsed it and I've been hearing Democrats on TV use the term "Obamacare" for months. Not so much now.
In rebuttal of childish people.
They already did jesus christ.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
DO IT HARDER.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I wish, this is just for executive and judicial nominees. I wish it was for legislation. If anything this make passing bills even harder than it already was.
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
I didn't mean to imply that it did, but it does have some positive effects (not removing the filibuster but reforming it). Again, my argument is for actual dialogue between the two parties, that's the only thing that could solve this problem. Besides a 3rd party
3rd and 4th party GAF unite
The Librarian
Banned
And, as I said, there's no incentive for them to have a dialogue, so they won't. A 3rd party can't happen in a FPTP system like ours.
Well I would not be in favor of making this apply to legislation, I do think that would be too powerful and perhaps end democracy. As pathetic as our unprecedented logjam on Budget and Farm is I'm not ready to go thermonucleur on the Republicans.
BertramCooper
Banned
Had Republicans been judicious with their use of the filibuster, they wouldn't be in this situation.
They've lost their moral right to use it. So fuck them.
They've lost their moral right to use it. So fuck them.
The only way you incentivize talking and compromise is electoral reform. My favorite is ranked voting and multi-member districts. What this does is abolish primaries (thank jeebus) and have multiple democrats and republicans running in a huge district. Minnesota, for example, would have 2 districts instead of 8. That way, a lot of those members would move towards the middle because the no longer care about the fringe crazies, they care about the average voter who could list him/her as his 2nd or 3rd choice.
Congressional procedural reforms isnt going to do jack shit to fix that problem
I mean, we do, but what does the word filibuster have to do with that? A gun for blowing up Philly?
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
But there is an incentive!!!!!
It is us. I know it's pie in the sky optimism, but that's how our system works. Aside from the part where its run by private interest money.
But seriously, it's important to maintain our ideals even in the face of our horrible, horrible current political system. Dialogue and a 3rd party will happen, eventually. Unless we nuke ourselves off the face of the planet first, it's bound to.
My real question is whether or not it will be too late to preserve our own existence once we realize this. but that's for a different topic.
The Librarian
Banned
I'm fond of Australia's system: A house with single-member districts appropriated based on population and elected through preferential voting, and a senate with four or six senators per state elected through proportional representation.
We're not an incentive. We elect politicians to best get our interests accomplished. If we keep electing different people, across many states, to Congress and they all do the same thing, how many times do we have to do this before you consider the system?
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
To those of you who say this would 'set a bad precedent' or something along those lines:
-This is the best time to do it.
-As Harry Reid said, the Senate is borderline obsolete.
-It is sad that things have come to this but the alternative was no better. Time to face reality and make the best of it. Reid just did that.
-Assuming the GOP does take back the Senate in 2014 for the sake of example -- given the party's insanity and outright perverse tenacity, particularly since the moment Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, do you really think what happens today will change what their plans would be for when they get back to majority status? No. They'd likely change the rules to suit their needs in the best way possible. Sure, today's developments gives them a scapegoat... but I sincerely doubt it will alter their true intent on how they would change Senate rules upon regaining majority status. Period.
-This is the best time to do it.
-As Harry Reid said, the Senate is borderline obsolete.
-It is sad that things have come to this but the alternative was no better. Time to face reality and make the best of it. Reid just did that.
-Assuming the GOP does take back the Senate in 2014 for the sake of example -- given the party's insanity and outright perverse tenacity, particularly since the moment Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, do you really think what happens today will change what their plans would be for when they get back to majority status? No. They'd likely change the rules to suit their needs in the best way possible. Sure, today's developments gives them a scapegoat... but I sincerely doubt it will alter their true intent on how they would change Senate rules upon regaining majority status. Period.
The gist of our preferences it is pretty similar since preferential voting and ranked voting is the same thing. I think top 2 is an improvement, but I think ranked voting is the way to go since it forces candidates to appeal to as many people as possible. Its pretty absurd that we've developed a system where our representatives don't need to do that.
Eh, Democrats even have a bumper sticker and all recognizing it as Obamacare; I think this is borderline meaningless Internet/youtube drivel that hurts our discourse.
ACA/Obamacare will be interchangeable until the end of time. Book it.
speculawyer
Member
People will say "Oh, you will regret this when you are in the minority!"
Meh, not really. The Dems are such pussies that they rarely used it. So I guess this will allow the GOP to nominate some loons to positions? Oh well . . . nominating loons will ultimately back-fire on them. I don't think nominating nuts like John Bolton to things improved the popularity of the GOP among anyone but their already hardcore base.
Meh, not really. The Dems are such pussies that they rarely used it. So I guess this will allow the GOP to nominate some loons to positions? Oh well . . . nominating loons will ultimately back-fire on them. I don't think nominating nuts like John Bolton to things improved the popularity of the GOP among anyone but their already hardcore base.
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
I absolutely consider the system as a huge problem, didn't mean to imply otherwise. Just trying to counteract what seems like your pessimistic view
We are an incentive though, perhaps some of the onus is on us to become less fickle. But that still means that we are in control of this crazy ride. And your point about electing different people across many states to do the exact same thing speaks to Stumpokapow's post about how the Senate used to be more substantially different from the House. It is a problem with the system, but guess who has the power to fix it? Elected officials. And that's how our constitution is set up.
Everybody, at the very least, vote. Just vote. It's so easy.
Yeah, Dems have nothing to lose at this point. By 2016 this will be but a faded memory.
Frankly it was smart in that it shifts the focus off Obamacare and on to Democrats getting something done about dysfunctional Government.
Not all the way, but it is a step in the right direction.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I'm not talking about getting rid of the filibuster, at least make them actually do it. Also Our democracy was doing just fine before the 60 vote threshhold rule was established so it's not a big deal if you ask me.
The Librarian
Banned
Pessimistic ≠ realistic. I'm a pretty optimistic person.IJust trying to counteract what seems like your pessimistic view
Take ENDA, for example. The majority of people in every state and in every district support it. Yet less than 25% of the Senate Republican caucus voted for it. It's not so much about voters being fickle, though there is, obviously, a threshold where public pressure becomes too much to resist.
How so? Elected officials act the way they do because of incentives set up by the system. Sure, they have the power to change the system, but there's no overwhelming pressure for them to do that, so they won't.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Yes, to be clear, when I said "minority" I am referring to the partisan minority within the legislative body, as opposed to minority groups within society.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think people underestimate the rage that people on the Hill are feeling. I also think Reid might not run again and use this as a legacy thing.
SolarPowered
Member
I never thought I'd see the day.
GOOD
GOOD
Partial Gamification
Banned
Potential backlash, and there were sincere efforts to try and iron-out a compromise; and also that has failed, repeatedly.
With the upcoming budget negotiations, this frees concessions Obama and his team can make with the Republicans. Give me a billion in spending for my program and I'll appoint a candidate from a list you provide.
titiklabingapat
Member
I love how many in the conservative blogo-sphere are spinning this. They are 'giddy' with anticipation of the GOP using this rule change when and if a Republican (of today's tea party archetype) president gets in power.
Okay...but have they seen the demographic changes lately? At worst, we will get a moderate Republican in the Executive office first, so good luck! Same with Senate races. More left wing Democrats seem to have no problem winning in red states lately.
Okay...but have they seen the demographic changes lately? At worst, we will get a moderate Republican in the Executive office first, so good luck! Same with Senate races. More left wing Democrats seem to have no problem winning in red states lately.
- Status