Senate passes Nuke option

[Razgovory]

Good.  If you get elected, you deserve to be able to govern, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.

Yeah, you say that now.

If Republicans get the House, the Senate, and the presidency in 2016, they deserve to be able to implement their agenda.  The voters would get what they deserve as well.

I was just yanking your chain.  I haven't heard anything from you to suggest hypocrisy.

These other folks, on the other hand...
http://youtu.be/EkXjYohzAOY

I guess you forgot the "Up or down vote ads that the GOP was running in 2005".

[grumbler]

It's a good thing that we have a republic, and not a democracy.

No wonder they found you unfit to practice law, since you can't keep that simple distinction in your brain.

Ah, the old "republics are not democracies canard.  First time I've seen that trotted out this week.

No wonder you practice law in Mississippi, since your "knowledge" would lose you any legal dispute in a first-world country.

[Scipio]

It's a good thing that we have a republic, and not a democracy.

No wonder they found you unfit to practice law, since you can't keep that simple distinction in your brain.

Ah, the old "republics are not democracies canard.  First time I've seen that trotted out this week.

No wonder you practice law in Mississippi, since your "knowledge" would lose you any legal dispute in a first-world country.

Republics are not democracies.

More importantly, undermining anti-democratic practices in a republic does not in fact undermine democracy, so Ide's comment made absolutely no sense. If you wanted to undermine democracy, you'd reinforce the anti-democratic features of the Senate.

[derspiess]

NYT editorial yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president's nominees.

And in 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html

The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

[KRonn]

It does seem that there was a huge surge in the use of filibusters, so it's not that surprising that the trigger got pulled in the end.

It's going to be fun some time in the future if this trend continues, with the Senate and Presidency are held by different parties. How will the executive function without being able to make any appointments?

The Executive branch, the President, would need to work with the opposition party also, not just his own party. That works for a President of either party and I'd much rather it that way, part of the check/balance on the process.

I saw a CNN news item that since this applies to judges that Pres Obama can now appoint friendly judges to Federal benches who may look more favorably on the legal issues coming down the pike over the ACA/Obamacare. So that's possibly one big reason why Reid pushed for this change at this time.

[DGuller]

The Executive branch, the President, would need to work with the opposition party also, not just his own party. That works for a President of either party and I'd much rather it that way, part of the check/balance on the process.

The fatal flaw of that reasoning is that it relies on the assumption that the opposition party is interested in the government governing.

[CountDeMoney]

NYT editorial yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president's nominees.

And in 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html

The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

You can angle it anyway you want with the ZOMG TEH HYOPCRAZY OF TEH NYT, derfilibuster, but after a while, shit just gets silly.

What you're seeing here are the number of "cloture" motions in every congressional session since 1919. Cloture is the procedure used to break a filibuster. Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate. Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes. As you can see, the majority is having to try and break many, many, many more filibusters than ever before.

This is an imperfect measure. On the one hand, it's susceptible to changes in congressional strategy: If the majority begins trying to break the filibuster more often, you could see more cloture votes, even though the filibuster isn't actually being used any more frequently. On the other side, it misses the many, many, many filibusters that never receive a cloture vote, either because the majority decides that a cloture vote is too time-consuming — simply holding a cloture vote takes about 30 hours of floor time — or because they won't win it.

That said, it is, at least, a relatively consistent measure, and it's the best one we have. And most observers agree that its basic point is correct: We're seeing many more filibusters today than we ever did before. But I actually think that's the wrong way to think about it.

The issue today isn't that we see 50, or 100, or 150 filibusters. It's that the filibuster is a constant where it used to be a rarity. Indeed, it shouldn't even be called "the filibuster": It has nothing to do with talking, or holding the floor. It should be called the 60-vote requirement. It applies to everything now even when the minority does not specifically choose to invoke it. There are no longer, to my knowledge, categories of bills that don't get filibustered because such things are simply not done, though there are bills that the minority chooses not to invoke their 60-vote option on. That's why Harry Reid says things like "60 votes are required for just about everything," though there are a small number of bills where the majority uses the budget reconciliation process to short-circuit the 60-vote requirement.

An interesting implication of this graph: The filibuster has become more common even as it's become easier to break. Until 1917, the filibuster couldn't be stopped. And until 1975, you needed two-thirds of the Senate, rather than three-fifths. So as it's become less powerful, it's become more common. What that means is that the rise of the filibuster is largely about "norms" in the Senate. It didn't become more effective and thus more popular. It actually became less effective, but parties chose to use it more.

There's an interesting question around exactly when this change in norms happened. If you look at the graph, you have three major moments of discontinuity. One, around 1972, that appears to provoke reform of the filibuster rules so cloture is easier to achieve. Another, in the early 1990s, that seems covers the latter half of George H.W. Bush's administration and the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency. And then the practice absolutely skyrockets when Barack Obama takes office.

We can argue about why there were these jumps. But their long-term effect seems to be to raise the bar permanently. Every time filibustering becomes much more common, it pretty much remains at that level, even as Congress and the White House changes hands. So the filibuster becomes more common under Bill Clinton, but remains almost that common under George W. Bush.

[KRonn]

The Executive branch, the President, would need to work with the opposition party also, not just his own party. That works for a President of either party and I'd much rather it that way, part of the check/balance on the process.

The fatal flaw of that reasoning is that it relies on the assumption that the opposition party is interested in the government governing.

A President who leads and is willing to give and take can get appointments through. He just won't get his own way all the time, as it should be. We're not a dictatorship.

[DGuller]

A President who leads and is willing to give and take can get appointments through. He just won't get his own way all the time, as it should be. We're not a dictatorship.

[Jacob]

NYT editorial yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president's nominees.

And in 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html

The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

Seems perfectly consistent.

In 2005: the filibuster is an important tool that should be used sparingly and with care.

In 2013: the filibuster was abused excessively and without care, as such the only reasonable course of action is to remove it.

[Jacob]

Republics are not democracies.

That is such a peculiar American bit of wackiness.

I have only heard that argument put forward by a small subset of Americans of a particular political bent. I guess it's the quirk comes from the fact that there are two parties - Republicans and Democrats - and some of the followers of the Republican party cannot abide by the fact that the other party's name is used to describe the prevalent system of government on the US?

The way I was taught the definitions - and which seem to get agreement from everyone except that subset of Americans - is that a Democracy is governed by the popular will of the people, while a Republic has a non-Royal head of state. It is possible to be a Democracy without being a Republic (as plenty of Constitutional monarchies attest), it is possible to be a Republic without being a Democracy (like North Korea and Syria, for example - in spite of what their names might claim), it's possible to be neither (like Sauid Arabia) and its possible to be both (like the US, Taiwan, Israel, Ireland, et. al.).

[Jacob]

The Executive branch, the President, would need to work with the opposition party also, not just his own party. That works for a President of either party and I'd much rather it that way, part of the check/balance on the process.

It seems to me that with the tea party in the drivers seat, there has been no compromise possible. I mean, one of the big criticisms of Obama has been that he tried to work with the Republicans and was too soft for way too long - that's what all the accusations of weakness are about.

I saw a CNN news item that since this applies to judges that Pres Obama can now appoint friendly judges to Federal benches who may look more favorably on the legal issues coming down the pike over the ACA/Obamacare. So that's possibly one big reason why Reid pushed for this change at this time.

Isn't that established American practice? That's certainly been my impression.

[garbon]

cannot abide by the fact that the other party's name is used to describe the prevalent system of government on the US?

This strikes me as odd as I was taught the US is both a constitutional republic and a representative democracy.

Akin to the UK being both a monarchy and a democracy.

[Valmy]

The reason the distinction is made Jake is because the Founding Fathers decided to form a more Roman-style Republican government rather than a Athenian-style Democracy.  And indeed for those guys, with their classical educations, that was an important distinction.  Today it is ridiculous because when people talk about Democracy now they are not referring to a government similar to Ancient Athens.  I find it really tiresome when that is brought up, it is an outdated 18th century distinction.

[11B4V]

http://www.newser.com/story/178025/stewart-skewers-hype-over-nuclear-option.html