About damn time. I wish he had extended it to legislation but this is still a big deal as said. I have no problem with blocking a nomination if there are real issues with a person. When there are it's possible to argue your case to the others in the room and get them to see your way. However when a block is done and when it finally ends nearly everyone votes for the person (and had no real issue with said person) you know it's being abused and that has been the case with republicans ever since President Obama took office. This entire situation has been very clear from the start.
Senate Democrats Eliminate Filibusters on Judicial and Executive Nominees
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Deified Data
Banned
It's remarkable how being in power can change a party's opinion on this sort of thing. Dems oppose it then, Repubs oppose it now. The impassioned language with which both sides either opposed or supported paints them both as hypocrites of the highest order.
Can someone clear up a couple things for an ignorant soul? Why didn't the Republicans pull the trigger on this before? Did they perhaps have the presence of mind to realize they wouldn't be in power forever and that it would just make their job harder down the line? If so, why haven't the Democrats realized the same thing? Is this something they can reverse before they leave power, or are they just arrogant enough to believe they'll hold power indefinitely?
Can someone clear up a couple things for an ignorant soul? Why didn't the Republicans pull the trigger on this before? Did they perhaps have the presence of mind to realize they wouldn't be in power forever and that it would just make their job harder down the line? If so, why haven't the Democrats realized the same thing? Is this something they can reverse before they leave power, or are they just arrogant enough to believe they'll hold power indefinitely?
Spite, and ultimately it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of an ineffective government.
Im with you.
It seems incredibly short-sided on behalf of the Democrats.
Just no possible way that they actually don't like the person being nominated huh?
Dear gawd, eff no. And I mean holy eff no.
This is only a possible reading when you're not familiar with the story at hand.
I know the story, but thanks.
Giant Panda
Member
Republicans never went nuclear because the Democrats never abused the filibuster anywhere close to the degree the Republicans have been doing it under Obama. You're kind of making a false equivalency. The Democrats don't believe they'll hold power indefinitely, they believe the Republicans would've made the change to the Senate as soon as they regained the majority in the Senate, so they might as well make the change now in order to get better judges filling those vacancies.
No, you clearly don't. Especially not with the push to solve the 3 DC Circuit vacancies by removing the seats altogether. To say that this has anything to do with an actual objection to the individual judges nominated is an expression of naivete.
What makes these *dozens* of nominees so dangerously unqualified and unlikable for their jobs then?
SouthernDragon
Member
The story is that they blocked more nominees than at any other point in history. Are you telling me that they found 93 people entirely unacceptable? Come on, man.
Giant Panda
Member
Obama nominated them, duh!
The Librarian
Banned
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/reid-if-mcconnell-wants-to-ends-the-filibuster-let-him-do-it
They're not stupid. If a party is elected to rule the majority of a chamber, they should be fully enable to enact their agenda. This makes it easier for voters to assign blame and for politicians to achieve policy results they were elected to accomplish. The demise of the filibuster has been long and slow, but it's finally here.
Oh, NeoGaf, how I love your only one-sided view of almost anything political.
http://news.yahoo.com/are-republica...nees-at-‘unprecedented--levels-001414638.html
That said, I really wish the Republicans played nicer when it came to these nominations. Im sure SOMEONE was acceptable.
Deified Data
Banned
Why do the Dems believe the Republicans would enact the change in the future when they didn't in the past?
And was it really that simple back then? The Republicans thought the Dems could be trusted? That doesn't sound right to me. There wasn't anything else stopping them?
I don't know what benefit there is in restricting the analysis to just judicial nominees as that article does.
The Librarian
Banned
Because you have Republicans saying they will.
Democrats didn't use the filibuster as heavily in all areas as Republicans did, and once when they did go too far, the Republicans threatened to eliminate it on judicial nominees but Democrats backed off at the last second.
Because thats what really started this whole thing.
Im really hating the Republicans right now. Im sure they could have found SOME people acceptate without driving Reed to go off his rocker.
Your link doesn't lead to any story, just a comments section (lol) and a bunch of other links.
Deified Data
Banned
So the Repubs backed off to preserve the filibuster for themselves in the future. And the Dems don't care about the filibuster so they're ending it because it hurts them more than it helps. I think I understand now, thank you.
Knowing that, I support the enactment of the so-called "nuclear option" regardless of who's using it. No party has the right to intentionally obstruct government.
That's what passes around as facts for Republicans - gut feeling, opinion, and anecdotes.
What are you arguing then? If you can accept that Republicans are just blocking nominees for the sake of blocking rather than finding them objectively terrible picks for their jobs, then what's your contention other than "oh neogaf, you're so liberal and one-sided"?
Also, what's so "off his rocker" about this? What about enabling majority rule for appointee confirmations is so crazy and atypical?
Because "liberal" gaf never stops to actually argue the merits of the othe?r side. Its always..ALWAYS..."Liberals get what they want? AWESOME!"
My problem is that the filibuster (in theory), is and should have continued to be a useful tool for the minority party to not have "rubber stamps" of all executive apointments. When used correctly. WHEN USED CORRECTLY.
IMO the resonable criticism of this is "Damn Republicans, what the hell were you guys doing? You guys have caused Reed to respond in a very irrational way due to frustrations and now we don't have a procedural safeguard to really object to some appointees that really do not fit the bill."
Reed went off his rocker because he now made the Senate much more volitle (sp).
Unfortunately, this is where the phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes into play.
I don't think we would be in this spot if a larger portion of Obama's executive nominees hadn't been filibustered.
Man a filibusterer is supposed to be reserved for the most serious of situations.
Yup. 100% agreement.
Again, there were no acceptable people because it was a blanket opposition. Individual merits didn't play into it, and because of that, there was no avenue to negotiate or compromise by offering different people.
Republicans really could have kept on blocking most federal seats if they weren't so adamant about not allowing any.
What's frustrating about the media coverage I've seen so far is they totally gloss over how that "gentleman's agreement" blew up. The GOP "agreed" to only filibuster judges and administration executive nominees under extraordinary circumstances, when the candidates were really unqualified.
They then immediately filibustered Chuck Hagel for SoD and blocked the DC circuit court nominees not out of any objection to qualifications, but because they don't want the court to tilt away from the GOP.
The agreement was struck specifically to head off this event, and then the GOP broke the agreement, under the assumption that Reid would not have the balls to do anything about it. Reid did. Now they've run crying to who ever will listen.
Even NPR blew the the story last night. They had the bits and pieces, but didn't connect them.
Great, sure, but that's not what's happening now or for the last five years.
There are no "merits to the other side" in this case. The "other side" here is just full stop blocking of any and all nominees appointed by Obama for no reason other than that they were appointed by Obama. What's to defend here? What merits for the GOP need be to argued for here? There's no reason to stop and go "hey, wait a minute, let's put ourselves in their shoes" for a second because there's no rational argument for the "other side." You're asking for people to play devil's advocate just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, which is more false equivalency nonsense.
Trying to be even-handed in all situations is a fool's errand because there are a handful of scenarios, particularly with our current GOP, where the "other side" is just plain wrong and trying to cater to their whims means being on the side of being wrong. There's simply no reason for them to have filibustered as many people as they have for as long as they have other than anti-Obama spite.
I get concerns about giving Senate majorities a free pass on executive and judicial nominees now, but the alternative was that NOTHING will ever get done. So Reid's decision here is not just warranted, it's necessary to a functioning government.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
The problem with this is that the approval process exists to weed out candidates who are not qualified to be in the position, not to weed out candidates with political views any party disagrees with. Those candidates who are not qualified will STILL be weeded out because it is not politically sound for any party to approve a candidate who is not qualified. The filibuster never should have been used in a political context for this sort of thing by any party. And you can go on harping about "liberal" GAF all you want, but I'm a moderate and agree with Reid on this one.
Also, to people who say this erodes the difference between the House and the Senate, I sort of still disagree. The Senate by the nature of having the same amount of representatives per state regardless of population size, and regardless of districting makes it much easier for compromise on issues to happen than in the house because Senators need to run for their entire populations and serve all of their needs because they are not gerrymandered into a district which ensures their re-election. THAT is the aspect that makes the minority power of the Senate strong, not necessarily the filibuster. I still think the filibuster needs to be around for legislation, but for executive appointments? Sorry, but no.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Republicans used and abused the system and now they have to pay the price. Nothing got done, less than half of the executive appointments have been allowed through, and there are still 90 some odd vacancies left with no chance of going through because the Republicans in congress are a bunch of petulant children, so it's gone. Simple as that.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, they really have no right to complain. They really abused the technique. They were warned multiple times if they kept doing it, Reid would change the rules. Reid threatened to change the rule at least twice before. But they kept going full obstructionist. They were even doing "reverse court-packing" . . . they intentionally kept open seats vacant to keep an advantage. Reid finally had enough and pulled the trigger. It was a good move.
And it is not even a huge one . . . this only applies to nominees, not legislation.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
I think that there has been much more give and take on legislation than nominees, though still not a ton. I wonder if this will scare republicans into being more reasonable with legislative bargaining though.
Nothing has done that yet.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
They're probably going to regret doing this when the shoe is on the other foot.
The Librarian
Banned
They won't. If you take that to its logical conclusion, that'll make it even harder to get things done. They knew full well the consequences of what they're doing.
speculawyer
Member
Perhaps some. But they would never use it as much as the GOP has lately so they might as well get rid of it.
And some people have been saying how this is going make partisanship even worse . . . I fail to see how that is even possible at this point. They already are using every lever of power they have.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If this happened 8 years ago, the Republicans would have been able to confirm the judges that the Democrats were filibustering themselves back then.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/07/050307fa_fact
Blowing Up The Senate: Will Bushs judicial nominees win with the nuclear option?
by Jeffrey Toobin March 7, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html
A Likely Script for The 'Nuclear Option'
May 18, 2005
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/nationalinterest/11263/
The Big Bomb in the Senate: The Republican right is desperate to implement whats called the nuclear option, ending filibusters. There may be blowback.
lol:
This sounds familiar (although there is evidence to show that it's worse now that before):
Or they could just change the rules back following a losing election, but before changing seats.
Seems pretty pointless because the winners can just change it right back.
I am glad they did it. Fuck fillibusters. They are undemocratic and the republicans refusing to nominate ANY judges to the 2nd district federal court was borderline unconstitutional.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Perhaps my logic is faulty, but how so?
You could ask Barack Obama.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4458729
Barack Obama said:
Barack Obama said:
Barack Obama said:
Is this enough of a difference between then and now to warrant the change?
Barack Obama said:
Yes, the difference is that Obama's nominations are taking far longer, his nominations have been far less successful at getting nominated, and the republicans are fillibustering EVERY bill. If the democrats can't get anything passed, and I mean anything and the Republicans refuse to confirm nominations just to make it more difficult for Obama to enact his policies, then why the hell shouldnt the democrats get rid of it?
Congress still actually functioned somewhat during the Bush years. Its only during the Obama administration that it went to all hell. Ive posted plenty of graphs and pictures in this thread to verify that. Hell, we passed some bipartisan bills during that time, and basic stuff like the farm bill and raising the debt ceiling werent an issue. Now? Nope. The threat to keep another party from using the nuclear option was that the other party would completely stall everything. Well, republicans are doing that now. Should Democrats sit on their ass, accomplish nothing, and make it more easy for their gains to be repealed because they couldnt get the 95 judicial nominees confirmed?
The straw that finally did it was that the Republicans refused to confirm ANY judges to the 2nd most important court in America. The reason they used was that they didnt have enough workload, which a non-partisan group said was complete BS. That is also practically unconstitutional because only a legislative bill can change the number of court appointees. All republicans wanted to do was to keep the current balance and when they get in charge put in their people. Its disgusting.
The Librarian
Banned
Because Reid has already said they don't care, and this will allow the Senate to get more things done. Why would they regret it?
I'm confused on whether you're being facetious or not. Politicians are people too and they're allowed to change their minds if the situation changes.
Look at the graphs posted on almost every page of this thread.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Because once the Republicans regain a majority, this will just as easily get undone.
And all of Senator Obama's arguments against the nuclear option are just as true today as they were back then. Politicians are allowed to change their mind, but they also love to be in favor of whatever strategy is in their best interest at the time.
I did. My question is rhetorical.
Your argument rests on the assumption that all other things are equal. Obstruction was not the same for Bush as it has been for Obama. The unprecendented degree is what prompted this action. Will they regret it? Perhaps, but in this situation they would regret not doing so far more.
You usually try to balance both sides in these kinds of discussions, but as expressed in Okrent's Law, seeking balance can lead to imbalance because sometimes something is true.
You usually try to balance both sides in these kinds of discussions, but as expressed in Okrent's Law, seeking balance can lead to imbalance because sometimes something is true.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Exactly. The obstruction is demonstrably worse than at previous times. Harry Reid clearly did not want to do this, hence why he prevaricated over it at several previous occasions. But the Republicans kept obstructing and abusing the system.
Yeah, multiple gentleman's agreements were made to limit the problem within sane bounds and preserve the current system, but each time those agreements did exactly nothing.
It's like trying to argue that since amputation is not an appropriate response to an ingrown toenail that doing so when your foot has gangrene is out of the question.
It's like trying to argue that since amputation is not an appropriate response to an ingrown toenail that doing so when your foot has gangrene is out of the question.
The Librarian
Banned
What will they undo? These rule changes or the remaining elements of the filibuster? The Republicans will get rid of the remaining elements of the filibuster if and when they retake the majority, that much is obvious (look at the statements made by McConnell) there was also a chance they were going to do it regardless if Reid did this or not. So why not get rid of some of it now and get some tangible benefits from it? The Senate has operated by majority rule for most of its life. If a party is elected to a majority of a chamber they should be able to enact their agenda as easily as possible. This makes it easier for voters to evaluate their performance and reward or punish a certain party. It's how a lot of other countries operate.
Er, no, they're not. Let's examine them one by one:
"Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse."
"But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party then the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, i feel that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything."
These two are virtually saying the same thing. How can it get worse? We're already seeing virtually no cooperation: ENDA and immigration reform won't pass the House, Congress can't put together a yearly budget, and rarely anything comes out of the Senate anyway. How would leaving the filibuster intact solve anything? If a minority party can block everything with more than enough votes, they will. Why? Voters send contradicting messages to politicians: represent our interests and work together with the other side (or, in the case of Republican voters, don't compromise). Working with the other side inevitably means compromising on some principles, which risks re-election. So politicians will, more often than not, choose the safer course: do not compromise because that means they're likelier to be reelected.
"What (Americans) dont expect is for one Party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game, so that they can make all the decision while the other Party is told to sit down and keep quiet."
Americans don't care about the rules of the Senate they care about results.
...just like a lot of regular people. A fundamental rule of politics is that politicians are rational actors that will behave according to what allows them to succeed and achieve the public policy they desire.
I don't get it. Are you arguing just to argue?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It doesn't. I explicitly pointed out the difference, and then mused as to whether or not, in the possibly near future, the Democrats are really willing to live with the precedent they've just set. The things that are equal are the arguments each side is making about the necessity and righteousness of their cause in 2005 and now. Cover up the names and party affiliations, and you wouldn't even know who's who. Despite the differences in circumstance, and due to that heavy helping of opportunistic language, I'm not sure if the ends justify the means.
They will undo whatever the Democrats do, and we might get stuck in a yo-yo cycle of doing and undoing or eventually a long stretch of one-party dominance. Some might like that. Some might also like how it'll be easier to undo things (if this eventually applies to legislation too), since traditionally it's been easier to pass things than to repeal them.
You don't know if they would have. They had the chance once and didn't go through with it. The Gang of 14 is pretty much dead. By doing it themselves, they remove any criticism from the Republicans if they do it too. There was always some doubt as to whether the Republicans would do such a thing, but now that the Democrats did it first, it's more a matter of "when", and not "if".
I'm also not sure just how much tangible benefit this will have in the short term, but we'll see.
That's more like the House. The Senate isn't supposed to be like that, for better or worse.
The system of checks and balances works better when each component has unique qualities to it. Not much point if they are more alike than they are different. I feel this is generally true, even through temporary bumps in the political road, like the current Republican obstructionism.
His point about removing minority rights and debate for future sessions is pertinent. "How can it get worse?" is a silly question. Things can always get "worse". Leaving the filibuster intact isn't necessarily about solving anything, but rather more about preserving an institutional process that exists for a particular purpose. If you are looking at the situation from the point of view of the Democratic constituency, then of course it's in their best interests, and the end would justify the means. Of course, there are still the other 50% of the country that do have a say in the matter, too.
Most Americans don't care about politics in general outside of major elections. The ones that do, mostly care about their own team's agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
I'm highlighting a point of discussion.
The Librarian
Banned
You have no evidence to support that.
Never said that I knew they would, just that there was a chance. The Republicans didn't get rid of it when they were in power because polarization between the parties wasn't as crystal clear as it was in the Obama administration. What preceded this deal was several handshake agreements that fell apart. Hence, Reid did what he did.
Uh, confirmed judges and nominees? Making it easier to impose regulations? Allowing government to work more efficiently?
Who defines how the Senate is supposed to operate? If we're talking the Founders, that IS how it's supposed to work. You do realize that the whole reason the filibuster exists is because of an accident, right? The Senate was left without a means of ending debate when the rules were cleaned out and "modernized" back in the 1800s.
That's all I feel like replying too because I think you need to do more research on the subject before this conversation goes on.
Rajack
Member
The bad thing is the changes arent really permanent. The republicans will restore the filibuster if they get the senate but not the presidency, and Democrats will restore it if they keep the senate but lose the presidency. This is only a temporary fix to a much larger and more chronic problem within our government. The level of civil discourse between party lines within the government these days is the lowest its ever been and we all are worse off for it. We need to elect more moderates (that have a spine) and get rid of the extremists of each party. It is this way, and only this way that we can get our country back on track.
- Status