Senate passes Nuke option

[Sheilbh]

Have the Dems really thought this through? Yeah, they can now pass more stuff without bipartisan support but they'll rue the day when there's a Repub President and Congress and bills and appointments they don't like are slammed through.

They've got rid of the filibuster for nominations, except to the Supreme Court. It's not that drastic.

There will be no minority voice, or it will be much diminished. Like a banana republic or something.

Or like more or less every other democracy in the world.

The American system is very odd comparatively and very often ends up with actual banana republics.

[CountDeMoney]

So does this mean it goes back to the original 2/3rds requirement? Or are they changing it to a simple majority of 51?

[Admiral Yi]

51

[DGuller]

They've got rid of the filibuster for nominations, except to the Supreme Court. It's not that drastic.

The precedent is what's drastic.  The door is now opened to further changes to the filibuster rules.  Some part of me suspects that Republicans abused the filibuster precisely to provoke Reid going nuclear, as part of the long game.  Of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that want to radically transform our society (despite the inane ravings of the Tea Partiers), so in the long run they're the ones benefiting from the erosion of filibuster.

[alfred russel]

They've got rid of the filibuster for nominations, except to the Supreme Court. It's not that drastic.

The precedent is what's drastic.  The door is now opened to further changes to the filibuster rules.  Some part of me suspects that Republicans abused the filibuster precisely to provoke Reid going nuclear, as part of the long game.  Of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that want to radically transform our society (despite the inane ravings of the Tea Partiers), so in the long run they're the ones benefiting from the erosion of filibuster.

Also, since the shitty states where no one lives tend to be Republican, they should have a natural majority.

But I doubt they are so smart.

[derspiess]

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

[DGuller]

Hypocrisy from politicians when it comes to filibuster is so old that it's beyond yawn-worthy.  And for every video of the Democrat/Republican decrying/glorifying the power of horrible/freedom-protecting filibuster, you can find the video of the Republican/Democrat decrying/glorifying the power of horrible/freedom-protecting filibuster.  Most of the time the saying "both sides are to blame" are the refuge of the intellectually lazy, but this is one of those rare cases where it is exactly the truth.

[derspiess]

[Jacob]

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?

[Admiral Yi]

Acting appointments and recess appointments.

[jimmy olsen]

They've got rid of the filibuster for nominations, except to the Supreme Court. It's not that drastic.

The precedent is what's drastic.  The door is now opened to further changes to the filibuster rules.  Some part of me suspects that Republicans abused the filibuster precisely to provoke Reid going nuclear, as part of the long game.  Of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that want to radically transform our society (despite the inane ravings of the Tea Partiers), so in the long run they're the ones benefiting from the erosion of filibuster.

If so I question its effectiveness as a long term strategy. With a simple majority the Dems can pass new social programs and the GOP can cut them, but doing the later is likely to cause considerably more political damage than former. It's why the GOP was so passionate about repealing Obamacare before it went into effect. Once a program starts benifiting people it becomes extremely difficult to remove, even if removing it is the best thing for the country. The Obama administration's incompetence in implementing it has swooped into save them at the last moment.

[DGuller]

They've got rid of the filibuster for nominations, except to the Supreme Court. It's not that drastic.

The precedent is what's drastic.  The door is now opened to further changes to the filibuster rules.  Some part of me suspects that Republicans abused the filibuster precisely to provoke Reid going nuclear, as part of the long game.  Of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that want to radically transform our society (despite the inane ravings of the Tea Partiers), so in the long run they're the ones benefiting from the erosion of filibuster.

If so I question its effectiveness as a long term strategy. With a simple majority the Dems can pass new social programs and the GOP can cut them, but doing the later is likely to cause considerably more political damage than former. It's why the GOP was so passionate about repealing Obamacare before it went into effect. Once a program starts benifiting people it becomes extremely difficult to remove, even if removing it is the best thing for the country. The Obama administration's incompetence in implementing it has swooped into save them at the last moment.

I don't disagree, but sometimes they best way to kill bad ideas is to give someone the power to implement them.  Either those ideas get discredited by the ensuing carnage, or their proponents sober up by the power they now have.  Either way you don't have this perpetual slow festering of the insanity that seeps into every facet of political life.

[Ideologue]

I'm actually against this, as the filibuster was an important weapon in the arsenal of those who are unwittingly doing my work and discrediting democracy, which is a good thing.  Sure, it's temporarily incredibly annoying, but when President Clinton dissolves Congress and rides over Paul Ryan with a tank, it will be all the more satisfying.

[Scipio]

I'm actually against this, as the filibuster was an important weapon in the arsenal of those who are unwittingly doing my work and discrediting democracy, which is a good thing.  Sure, it's temporarily incredibly annoying, but when President Clinton dissolves Congress and rides over Paul Ryan with a tank, it will be all the more satisfying.

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.

[Razgovory]