That's called rationalization. I don't think too many republicans are really giddy over this. And I say republicans, not 'conservative' as you did, because they are not synonymous. Just as 'liberal' and Democrat are not synonymous.
Senate Democrats Eliminate Filibusters on Judicial and Executive Nominees
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
That's called rationalization. I don't think too many republicans are really giddy over this. And I say republicans, not 'conservative' as you did, because they are not synonymous. Just as 'liberal' and Democrat are not synonymous.
speculawyer
Member
Awww. That is so cute. They think a Tea Partier will get into the White House.
Not correct. There are over 90 vacancies on federal benches that have yet to be filled, and especially the continued refusal to allow Obama to fill the 3 vacancies on the DC Circuit court no matter what is a major motivation behind Reid pulling the trigger.
Literally, their objection wasn't to the people picked, but to the act of picking at all.
Well, that article was dated July. I know at least a couple of the filibusters of DC Circ Ct nominees have been since then (one was Nov 18). So, what's the count now? 5 to 4? 5 to 5? 5 to 6? I think if it were really lopsided, it would be in that "people for the American Way" graph up there. There's a reason it is showing only executive nominees, and that was my point above. Both sides only tell the truth they want out there.
That count almost certainly uses a dated definition of the filibuster, considering how creative the Senate has become in obstruction. Perpetuating debate? How about not even allowing debate to begin.
Oh, and secret holds are still being practiced.
Oh god, you're the "both sides are the same" type, aren't you?
And that's why I don't feel bad. Yes, this will probably bite us a bit in the future. Perhaps it's too short-term thinking. But, it had to happen. The way Republicans were abusing the Senate pretty much destroyed the institution these past 6 years. It was utterly insane.
If ever there was a case of "they gave me no options", this is it. Harry Reid fucking pussied out of this endlessly, and that he finally did it even being an old school dude who genuinely respected the Senates many traditions, says all that needs to be said about the state of things. It's no surprise Meghan McCain said his Dad is more depressed now than he was after losing the election to Obama.
No, I'm a both sides are wrong type.
Monocle
Member
To be fair, one side is a lot wronger than the other.
Well i am glad it happened. I don't follow this stuff closely, but I do remember seeing something recently on just how ridiculously hard the Republicans have made it for Obama to nominate anyone to almost any thing. So yeah I am glad Reid finally did what he has been threatening to do for years now. It was long over do.
RustyNails
Member
My prediction is that this will embolden Tea People in the congress to act on another shutdown in February because by God they will not have their rights trampled.
Yup, they both suck equally...
Whats galling is that they filibustered the federal court judges just because they didnt want any left leaning judges to tip the balance, which completely does an end around the constitution because you can only change the make up of a court by a legislative vote. Not simply refusing to approve perfectly qualified people
Pretty good day for the country. I can only hope that the GOP makes good of getting rid of the filibuster entirely when they have the opportunity, if the Dems are unwilling to do so. Though I expect Dems will remove it from SCOTUS nominations or legislation when it makes sense. (Namely, the GOP blocks Obama's next SCOTUS appointment, or if Dems take the House and the Senate GOP continue to block most legislation).
Yes. For all the GOP's bluster about rules (and this rule change was perfectly within the rules), they were trying to force a de facto legislative change by way of denying Obama his nominees a vote.
Yes. For all the GOP's bluster about rules (and this rule change was perfectly within the rules), they were trying to force a de facto legislative change by way of denying Obama his nominees a vote.
Couldn't this also work against Democrats if, for some reason, Republicans one day win back the Senate or the presidency? How often did Dems filibuster nominees or legislation they didn't like? Or am I reading this entirely wrong? I'm all for, anything that removes partisan politics or gets things done.
Four_Chamber
Member
Make it a real filibuster again. I hope we get the "talking filibuster" out of this.
Yup, its really infuriating that the perfectly legal and sane choice is treated as radical and gets a lot of press about killing bipartisanship (lol) while the shady and unconstitutional (at least in spirit) refusal to approve federal judges because they did not want the court to shift to the left is barely talked at all.
Ridiculous
Democrats used the fillibuster on legislation and nominees in the bush era. It has simply just doubled and tripled under Obama to the point where nothing gets done because EVERYTHING is fillibustered, even competent, qualified nominees.
And the Democrats filibustered Bush judicial nominees because??
Note: I think its well established in this thread that Republicans have been 'abusing' the rules if you want to use that term when it comes to executive nominees, i.e. people nominated to work positions within the administration. I haven't seen anything to show it's been quite as lopsided when it comes to federal circuit court judge nominations. Maybe it is. But Democrats filibustered five of Bush's federal circuit court nominees, and as far as I know that was the first time it had been done. That's what started this whole 'nuclear option' thing in the first place, when it was Republicans who were talking about it and the Democrats saying they were just following the rules and it would ruin the country etc.
Amibguous Cad
Member
Seeing as they only filibustered a fraction of the amount the republicans do now, I doubt it was petty bullshit.
titiklabingapat
Member
They already have to an extent. GhaelonEB said it best when he said that the GOP has practically instituted a legislative change by blocking Obama's nominees. They have also repeatedly shown resistance to compromise and Democrats have rightly predicted that once the ball is in the GOP's court, that they will show no remorse in instituting the rule change themselves so might as well do it now when the Dems have some semblance of power.
Have you not seen the graphs being posted? They are easily verifiable from third party and non-partisan sources.
JesseEwiak
Member
Because there's a difference between filibustering a few extreme nominees (as seen by the charts above) and filibustering everyone, simply because they're nominated by Obama. Now, I was for the end of the filibuster back then, but at least there was a reasoning beyond, "no!"
As for the blowback, I'm of the belief that the GOP will blow up the filibuster the moment they have the Trinity anyway, so it doesn't matter.
because Citizens United etc.
I honestly would have paid to be a fly on Mitch McConnell's wall when he got the word. McConnell shook Reid's hand and they had a "gentleman's agreement", and he must have thought himself so fucking clever as he literally went back on his word immediately later that same day. He must have thought, like most of us, that Reid would forever remain a pussy
Ideological reasons, mostly. A lot of the vacancies in the Bush term were previously occupied by Republican appointed judges.
There was never a blatant attempt to NEVER approve any judicial nominees for a circuit court because that would mean more appointees by that president.
You may think that democrats blocking Republican nominees based on ideological reasons scummy, but the key difference is that they were doing it to get a more moderate candidate. They werent doing it to stop Bush from ever nominating an appointee again. One is scummy, the other is borderline unconstitutional.
Amibguous Cad
Member
This only applies to judicial or other executive appointments, not legislation. Otherwise, you have it right: this will reduce the ability of the demos to block such appointments for the Republicans. Many democrats are still happy about this because they view indefinite filibusters as bad for the country.
Well they're not from non-partisan sources, but I'm sure the information is accurate. Just not complete. As I said, the main chart there refers to executive position nominations. It does not compare federal circuit court nominations. I linked an article earlier in which Sen. Alexander stated that the Democrats filibustered five of Bush's federal court nominees and at that time (July) the Republicans had filibustered two of Obama's. That number is certainly higher by now, but not as lopsided as the executive position filibusters. He also stated that the filibuster of Federal judge nominees by the Democrats in the Bush years was the first time it had ever been done. Once you break the seal ...
Why the hell are you focusing on just federal court judges like the rest don't matter? Its absurd. This was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasnt the sole reason why the democrats ended fillibuster.
http://judicialnominations.org/
Well, there you go. Twice as many cloture votes against federal judges under Obama than Bush
The website plays audio, and has information, so turn it up if you want to hear it
speculawyer
Member
Damn . . . it is hard for me to look at a graph like this and not feel that there is racism involved.
It is like Syria . . . the conservatives were always happy to bomb any nation with brown-skinned Muslim people. But as soon as Obama suggested launching a few missiles into Syria after it had been PROVEN that chemical weapons attacks had actually really occurred, many GOPers got all indignant. Never mind the fact that they had just a few years earlier cheer-leaded an expensive land-invasion of another country based on the mere possibility that they MIGHT have WMDs which weapons inspectors could not find (and did not exist). Such double-standards. Why . . . what is different about THIS president? :-/
It is like Syria . . . the conservatives were always happy to bomb any nation with brown-skinned Muslim people. But as soon as Obama suggested launching a few missiles into Syria after it had been PROVEN that chemical weapons attacks had actually really occurred, many GOPers got all indignant. Never mind the fact that they had just a few years earlier cheer-leaded an expensive land-invasion of another country based on the mere possibility that they MIGHT have WMDs which weapons inspectors could not find (and did not exist). Such double-standards. Why . . . what is different about THIS president? :-/
I'm sure it's just coincides......
RustyNails
Member
Are you playing the game 'BuBu Both Sides!'? I love that game.
Because the charts/graphs focus on executive nominees, hiding the judicial nominee numbers which weren't as horrendous. But I guess things have gotten very nasty over the last couple months since the shutdown boondoggle, because yeah, like you said there've been twice as many cloture votes against federal judicial nominees under Obama than Bush. But FOUR of them have been within the past month. Until one month ago, it was still basically a tie.
I'm sure Obama's nominees aren't 'extreme' like the nominees the Democrats filibustered though.
scytheavatar
Member
Filibusting for executive branch is dumb and should have been eliminated a long time ago anyway. These guys aren't supposed to be able to do anything without approval from the President so why shouldn't the President have the right to nominate whomever he likes? Filibusting judicial nominees make more sense but the fillbuster for SCOTUS nominees is still in place and I doubt anyone is dumb enough to push for its elimination anytime soon.
Did you actually look at the graph in that post or the website? The graph specifically states Federal Judicial Court nomination percentage
I mean, come on...
That doesnt seem like basically a tie to me
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/21/do-obama-nominees-face-stiffer-senate-opposition/
As for extreme, well this Bush nominee struck down Obamacare's birth control mandate
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...strikes-down-obamacare-birth-control-mandate/
And this person was approved during the bush years!
Here is a description of another one of Bush's nominees
I agree. Filibustering executive nominees is about trying to slow/nullify the administration's agenda. I think that goes against the general principle that the people elected the President on a platform of ideas and he has the right to exercise his authority to enact those ideas, to the extent of the power granted the executive branch.
Oh ye of little faith.
speculawyer
Member
So because MAYBE there would be a chance of escalation of Syria despite the fact that we KNOW they chemical weapons attack, we couldn't launch of a few cruise missiles . . . but an overt land invasion of Iraq based on the possibility that he MIGHT have WMDs was just fine.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
BTW, we are talking about the GOP view not the Dem view. Dems were conflicted with both the Iraq and the Syria actions. And many of the Dems voted for Iraq because they were afraid of being portrayed as 'weak' (and they were weak . . but only because they didn't have the guts to stand for their view).
C'mon . . that was obviously exaggerated hyperbole. But I don't think you can doubt that they had any issues with attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, The Philippines, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.
Partial Gamification
Banned
One came before the other and the former was a mistake, the latter time will tell. False information presented to the UN, the idea a liberating force would be welcomed, labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil while we we discretely worked with them turning the fucking mess into a proxy war... Just because people make mistakes and some of those sorry bastards are still holding office does not mean the same course of action is mandated in another muslim country. There is bias toward Muslims from ignorance about the culture and a perverted notion of American exceptionalism where might makes right.
9-11 happened and we invaded Iraq under false pretenses. You know what people say when the US gets attacked? People start asking who we are going to bomb, seemingly normal people -expecting vengeance. There was a terrible knee-jerk reaction at play with Iraq too (and the not wanting to be weak point).
I see where you are coming from, I agree in the most general sense but think these are just too complicated to reduce down to the level your putting it. It does no justice to all the lives lost, the disfigured, the displaced, the refugees, and the orphans of these damned conflicts.
Hyperactivity
Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=UU2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY&list=UU2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2DfpjIuXo&list=UU2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A&list=UU2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=UU2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&list=UU2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w
These are all awesome for gerrymandering and voting
Lonewolf_92
Member
Yeah good stuff. Though I will note that you can have systems of PR that are proportional by province so each province elects as proportionally as possible within its existing seats. It won't be perfectly proportional from an overall perspective but will be a hell of an improvement from the current situation while preserving the current balance between densely and sparsely populated regions.
What advantage were the Republicans gaining by doing this? Was it just to spite Obama? Or do they think if they win the next election (ha), they won't be able to remove Obama's appointed judges?
Yes.
The vitriol among far-right Republicans - both the politicians themselves and their constituents - is so strong that anyone can't be seen agreeing to *anything* with Obama's name attached to it, lest they get primaried next year. This is why Chris Christie shaking hands with Obama after visiting the Sandy-torn areas of NJ last year is such a controversy. This is why more people appose the ACA when it's called "Obamacare" rather than just "Affordable Care Act." This is why Obama's proposal for gun control background check reform died despite a majority of Americans actually being in favor of it. It's the anti-Obama-no-matter-what position.
That's just judges. There are way more appointed positions left empty
- Status