Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

For those who don't know, the "nuclear option" in 2013 was when Harry Reid changed the rules so that presidential executive nominees and judicial nominees except for the Supreme Court could be approved with 51 votes instead of 60, due to killing the filibuster as a delay tactic.

Now, here we are in 2017. Take a sample from this thread:

U.S. Senate Committee backs Tillerson as Trump's secretary of state

At least the democrats held their ground. Better filibuster this.

Not possible after Democrats nuked the filibuster for executive and judicial nominees the last time they were in charge. Only Supreme Court nominations can be filibustered now.

Oh that's right. Dammit.

I vaguely recall warning you guys about this back in 2013.

Hey, you know what? I did.

Senate Democrats Eliminate Filibusters on Judicial and Executive Nominees

This is a great day: The Senate was made far more functional as an institution, and the days of a 60-vote threshold to end debate on legislation and SCOTUS nominees are clearly numbered.

They're probably going to regret doing this when the shoe is on the other foot.

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.

Did they, though?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/politics/senate-democrats-nuclear-option-donald-trump/

"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/chuck-schumer-nominees/index.html

Sen. Chuck Schumer lamented Tuesday the Democrats' move to diminish the number of senators needed to confirm Cabinet picks from 60 votes to 51, because the new rule now hurts his party.

"I argued against it at the time. I said both for Supreme Court and in Cabinet should be 60 because on such important positions there should be some degree of bipartisanship," Schumer, a New York Democrat and the incoming Senate minority leader, told CNN's Dana Bash. "I won on Supreme Court, lost on Cabinet. But it's what we have to live with now."

"Wish it hadn't happened," Schumer said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/opinion/harry-reid-farewell-fair-senate.html

One thing we fought for that's worth defending is a fairer, more open and more productive Senate. We changed the Senate rules to guarantee a president's nominees a simple-majority vote, and declared that a president's nominees should not be stymied with procedural hurdles and a requirement for supermajority votes. (Supreme Court nominations still have this requirement.)

We declared that the changes should apply regardless of which party was in the White House, because fair votes are what democracy is all about. I doubt any of us envisioned Donald J. Trump's becoming the first president to take office under the new rules. But what was fair for President Obama is fair for President Trump.

Moreover, the rule change has been a victory for those who want to see a functioning, open and transparent Senate. It allowed Mr. Obama's judicial nominees to receive the just consideration they deserved. Without the rule change, Republicans would have been able to hold open three seats on our nation's second highest court, the District of Columbia Circuit Court, until the next Republican administration. The judges we confirmed to those seats will loom large in the years to come. In 2014 alone, the Senate confirmed 89 Circuit and District Court judges, more than for any year in two decades.

So this raises the question - was it worth it? Did the gains made in those 3 years offset what may or may not happen in the next 4 or 8 years from now?

 

[Oblivion]

Despite the seemingly shitty situation we're in, I do think it was the right decision.

The problem with thinking that it was a mistake is assuming that had the filibuster still remained in place, Republicans would keep their end of the bargain. Especially given the current stakes. Republicans are dicks, and the situation would hardly be any different, imo.

 

[BronsonLee]

Did you really make a damn crow thread on this

 

[Maledict]

Yes, it was worth it. The entire 'checks and balances' system has done nothing but paralyse American government, and allow parties to escape responsibility for their actions. I am convinced it's why politics in America is so polarised.

Winners of elections should be able to deliver on their manifesto, as loathsome as it is, just like they can in most other western countries. That way you live and die by your politics - and in the long run, you move to the centre because that's where elections are won and the centre doesn't want lunatics who shut down the entirety of government.

 

[Barzul]

Still think it was the right decision. It will make undoing whatever Trump does that much more easier.

 

[Jarmel]

Obviously it was a mistake in hindsight but I don't think anybody was concerned someone like Trump would be even a viable candidate. For anybody else on the planet this wouldn't have mattered but here we are.

 

[Volimar]

Despite the seemingly shitty situation we're in, I do think it was the right decision.

The problem with thinking that it was a mistake is assuming that had the filibuster still remained in place, Republicans would keep their end of the bargain. Especially given the current stakes. Republicans are dicks, and the situation would hardly be any different, imo.

Same here. It's awful when it's used against us, but I still want it there when we need it against an obstructionist Republican party.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Did you really make a damn crow thread on this

Yeah if you're gonna make a crow thread ya should do a "trump wont win and here's why you idiot' crow thread.

You'd be filled up with quotes just using posts from the week before election lol.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Did you really make a damn crow thread on this

Yeah isn't the general policy to bump the old thread out of nowhere so that the legions can come in with their absolutely hilarious reaction gifs?

This just feels wrong.

 

[Rentahamster]

Despite the seemingly shitty situation we're in, I do think it was the right decision.

The problem with thinking that it was a mistake is assuming that had the filibuster still remained in place, Republicans would keep their end of the bargain. Especially given the current stakes. Republicans are dicks, and the situation would hardly be any different, imo.

You think that if Reid hadn't invoked the nuclear option, the Republicans now would have just done it themselves anyway? Possibly.

The last time this was on the Republicans' table was during the W. Bush administration, and it didn't get triggered due to the actions of the Gang of 14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Bush_appointments:_2001.E2.80.932006

 

[Rentahamster]

Did you really make a damn crow thread on this

It's just a backdrop for context regarding the thesis of the thread - was ending the filibuster a mistake?

Yeah if you're gonna make a crow thread ya should do a "trump wont win and here's why you idiot' crow thread.

You'd be filled up with quotes just using posts from the week before election lol.

You mean like this?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=224160933#post224160933

(not its own thead, but a post)

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

On the plus side, crow is actually quite tastey when cooked right.