Just announced.
Take that, China! :menace:
Edit: Disappointed. :(
Good. If you get elected, you deserve to be able to govern, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
Figured it would be inevitable. Kinda diminishes all the fury we had before over the threat of implementing it. We've gone from nuclear option is Hitler to meh. :P
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
Good. If you get elected, you deserve to be able to govern, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
Yeah, you say that now.
Good.
Am I right that it's for nominations except for those to the Supreme Court? That seems a decent position.
Dont' think there's ever been a hold put on a SC nominee.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2013, 01:48:26 PM
Dont' think there's ever been a hold put on a SC nominee.
But because of their importance you should be able to filibuster SC nominees. I'm less convinced for judges lower down the line and think President's should have huge discretion in shaping their own administration.
Little late.
Still no missile trails or bomber contrails here. :(
I don't like this as it takes too much away from a minority party, which could be the Dem party next time. I know it's frustrating at times and it works for/against both parties, but it's also like a check/balance as well.
The filibuster was clearly being abused so this is a good thing.
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2013, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2013, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
Good. If you get elected, you deserve to be able to govern, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
Yeah, you say that now.
So you are of the opinion that the elected party shouldn't be allowed to govern?
Some years ago when Obama and Biden were Senators the Republicans were threatening to pass this same thing. These two as Senators, and other Dems, ranted and raved against the error of passing such a rule. They were very adamant of the negatives of it.
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. There will be no minority voice, or it will be much diminished. Like a banana republic or something.
Quote from: KRonn on November 21, 2013, 06:55:46 PMHave 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.
QuoteThere 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.
So does this mean it goes back to the original 2/3rds requirement? Or are they changing it to a simple majority of 51?
51
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 06:59:05 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 08:03:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 06:59:05 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 06:23:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2013, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
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
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.
:lol:
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?
Acting appointments and recess appointments.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 08:03:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 06:59:05 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2013, 01:10:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 08:03:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 06:59:05 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 22, 2013, 01:49:10 AM
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.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2013, 11:01:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 06:23:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2013, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
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 (http://youtu.be/EkXjYohzAOY)
I guess you forgot the "Up or down vote ads that the GOP was running in 2005".
Quote from: Scipio on November 22, 2013, 03:17:58 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 07:15:25 AM
Quote from: Scipio on November 22, 2013, 03:17:58 AM
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.
NYT editorial yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0
QuoteFor 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
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 12:38:38 AM
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.
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:03:26 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 22, 2013, 09:44:39 AM
NYT editorial yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0
QuoteFor 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
QuoteThe 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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Fezra-klein%2FStandingArt%2Faviary%2520%281%29.jpg%3Fuuid%3DGzpEUJ7LEeG8pnJ7y9v4Zg&hash=ab2aff65b2a942298439dc232630df7c7638244b)
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2013, 11:08:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:03:26 AM
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.
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:13:55 AM
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.
:jaron:
Quote from: derspiess on November 22, 2013, 09:44:39 AM
NYT editorial yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0
QuoteFor 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
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Scipio on November 22, 2013, 07:58:04 AM
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.).
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:03:26 AMThe 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 11:28:34 AM
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.
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.
http://www.newser.com/story/178025/stewart-skewers-hype-over-nuclear-option.html
Next thing you know, the President is going to try to actually get governmental departments moving again. And then all hell's gonna break loose.
I thought Michelle was on the Let's Move campaign.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 11:28:34 AM
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)
Those two are the worst possible examples of republics considering that they have a quasi-monarchical rule of succession. There are lots of republics that aren't democracies though, e.g. Russia or China.
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2013, 11:08:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:03:26 AM
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.
I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".
How do you negotiate the head of an agency that the GOP want to render ineffective by denying the appointment of a head of that agency?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2013, 11:49:15 AM
Next thing you know, the President is going to try to actually get governmental departments moving again. And then all hell's gonna break loose.
That's cute.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 12:04:16 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2013, 11:08:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on November 22, 2013, 11:03:26 AM
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.
I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".
How do you negotiate the head of an agency that the GOP want to render ineffective by denying the appointment of a head of that agency?
With leadership and bipartisanship.
Reaching across the aisle. :yes:
Quote from: derspiess on November 22, 2013, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2013, 11:49:15 AM
Next thing you know, the President is going to try to actually get governmental departments moving again. And then all hell's gonna break loose.
That's cute.
What's cuter is how the GOP doesn't like an agency, hey, let's keep it from getting its appointed leadership. Now THAT'S really fucking cute.
It's "Advise and Consent", not "Advise and Cockblock for Shits and Giggles".
I don't think anyone believes that America is a democracy. The American demos is not ultra-liberal Jews/lizard people.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 12:04:16 PM
I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".
I've seen and heard this characterization of events repeated a number of times in progressive print and TV, and I just don't see how it can possibly be supported by the facts.
Obamastimulus was a completely Democratic creation. Obamacare was essentially an internal debate between progressive and centrist Democrats, with the two Republican chick senators joining the centrist Democrats. Teh Fiscal Cliff was a compromise: Democrats got the higher rate on fat cats and Republicans moved the fat cat line up to 450K. Debt Limit I was a compromise: Teh Sequester was a fraction of what Republicans had asked for going in. Teh Government Shutdown was not a compromise: Obama said he was not willing to give anything and that's what the Republicans ended up getting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2013, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 12:04:16 PM
I think the current GOP Congress has proven that to be utterly false. Time and time again Obama has negotiated and compromised, only to have the GOP move the goal posts until they ended up at "give us everything we wanted in our starting position".
I've seen and heard this characterization of events repeated a number of times in progressive print and TV, and I just don't see how it can possibly be supported by the facts.
Obamastimulus was a completely Democratic creation. Obamacare was essentially an internal debate between progressive and centrist Democrats, with the two Republican chick senators joining the centrist Democrats. Teh Fiscal Cliff was a compromise: Democrats got the higher rate on fat cats and Republicans moved the fat cat line up to 450K. Debt Limit I was a compromise: Teh Sequester was a fraction of what Republicans had asked for going in. Teh Government Shutdown was not a compromise: Obama said he was not willing to give anything and that's what the Republicans ended up getting.
:face:
Hey Kronn - a bit on how a Republican rule change in the House of Representatives ensured the government shutdown occured: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown
Quote from: derspiess on November 22, 2013, 09:44:39 AM
NYT editorial yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0
QuoteFor 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
QuoteThe 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.
Not sure what argument you think you are making here, since you don't make any argument at all, but these conclusions certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Why don't you make an argument, and use these quotes as evidence, rather than simply providing the quotes and expecting people to read your mind as to why you think they are significant?
Quote from: derspiess on November 22, 2013, 09:44:39 AM
NYT editorial yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html?_r=0
QuoteFor 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
QuoteThe 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.
But it wasn't used with caution. From Washington to G.W. Bush it was used to block 86 Presidential nominees while in Obama's administration it has been used to block 82!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.democraticunderground.com%2Fimgs%2F2013%2F131122-gop-hypocrisy-on-filibusters.jpg&hash=8089a4d703b35dd27ccba50527e77f8dc18bb2df)
Filibuster isn't the problem. The ability to filibuster without actually filibustering is the problem. The reason they didn't need to use cloture so damn often in the past is because back then you had to get the fuck up and keep talking in order to filibuster something.
That's one way to do it, but then a filibuster is just a one day or so stalling tactic.
Filibuster as minority blocking works if the minority is willing to vote for cloture with the majority in all but exceptional cases.
Incidentally I heard on NPR that Reid kept the filibuster for legislation and for SC nominees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2013, 04:10:24 PM
Incidentally I heard on NPR that Reid kept the filibuster for legislation and for SC nominees.
I'm cool for keeping it for SC nominees, that hasn't been a problem. Legislation is a bit more iffy.
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
Not sure what argument you think you are making here, since you don't make any argument at all, but these conclusions certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Why don't you make an argument, and use these quotes as evidence, rather than simply providing the quotes and expecting people to read your mind as to why you think they are significant?
Why don't you just fuck off, old man.
One important aspect of this that I think is going largely unremarked is Reid's immediate objective. Now I'm going on possibly faulty memory here from back when Reid first raised the possibility of going nukalar, but my understanding is that Reid wants first of all to expand the DC Court of Appeals, presumably so that he can fill it up Democratic nominees and create a Democratic majority. The DC court is important because it has jurisdiction over all federal regulatory activity.
Not totally disimilar to FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court by expanding it. That move created one of the strongest backlashes of his presidency and his Democratic Congress ended up voting it down.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2013, 12:38:38 AM
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?
Well, american parties are becoming more europeanized. Running a proper opposition by trying to stop anything and everything the government might do. As opposed to this silly bipartisanship ideal you people have over there.
I believe in monopartisanship.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 23, 2013, 06:13:53 PM
I believe in monopartisanship.
Is that what we call a combover ?
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2013, 05:14:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
Not sure what argument you think you are making here, since you don't make any argument at all, but these conclusions certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Why don't you make an argument, and use these quotes as evidence, rather than simply providing the quotes and expecting people to read your mind as to why you think they are significant?
Why don't you just fuck off, old man.
Sorry to tax you with actually making arguments, old woman, but hat's how debate works. Bursting into tears and telling someone to "fuck off" doesn't get you any traction. Arguments with evidence get you traction.
Why don't you dry your tears and try again?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2013, 05:22:41 PM
One important aspect of this that I think is going largely unremarked is Reid's immediate objective. Now I'm going on possibly faulty memory here from back when Reid first raised the possibility of going nukalar, but my understanding is that Reid wants first of all to expand the DC Court of Appeals, presumably so that he can fill it up Democratic nominees and create a Democratic majority. The DC court is important because it has jurisdiction over all federal regulatory activity.
Not totally disimilar to FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court by expanding it. That move created one of the strongest backlashes of his presidency and his Democratic Congress ended up voting it down.
Expanding the DC Court of Appeals isn't an immediate objective. It would take House approval, which isn't going to be immediately available.
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2013, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2013, 05:14:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
Not sure what argument you think you are making here, since you don't make any argument at all, but these conclusions certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Why don't you make an argument, and use these quotes as evidence, rather than simply providing the quotes and expecting people to read your mind as to why you think they are significant?
Why don't you just fuck off, old man.
Sorry to tax you with actually making arguments, old woman, but hat's how debate works. Bursting into tears and telling someone to "fuck off" doesn't get you any traction. Arguments with evidence get you traction.
Why don't you dry your tears and try again?
Okay.
Fuck off.
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
Okay.
Fuck off.
Did that work for you on the kindergarten playground? If so, you might want to use it there again. Here, though, you just sound petulant. It doesn't bother me, but you are going to have to live with the knowledge that you sound like a teenage twat.
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2013, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2013, 05:14:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
Not sure what argument you think you are making here, since you don't make any argument at all, but these conclusions certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Why don't you make an argument, and use these quotes as evidence, rather than simply providing the quotes and expecting people to read your mind as to why you think they are significant?
Why don't you just fuck off, old man.
Sorry to tax you with actually making arguments, old woman, but hat's how debate works. Bursting into tears and telling someone to "fuck off" doesn't get you any traction. Arguments with evidence get you traction.
Why don't you dry your tears and try again?
Okay.
Fuck off.
:lol:
:face:
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2013, 06:52:23 PM
Expanding the DC Court of Appeals isn't an immediate objective. It would take House approval, which isn't going to be immediately available.
And for all the focus on the DC Court of Appeals there's now about 10% of the Federal judiciary to be absent because they've retired or, less damagingly, took senior status. I believe some circuits are disproportionately affected and most far worse than the situation with appeals judges.
To add my cynical two cents I think the person in DC who should find this most worrying is probably Kathleen Sebelius.
QuoteIncidentally I heard on NPR that Reid kept the filibuster for legislation and for SC nominees.
Yeah, as I say, it's not such a big deal and strikes me as common sense. Supreme Court nominees are serious enough to deserve the right to filibuster, I'm not convinced of lower down the judicial ranks especially if its hindering the court system. When an administration nomination unless there's something seriously wrong, Congress should defer to the President.
QuoteThe 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 think Obama has tried to a remarkable degree. He's had two Republican (all be it anathema) Secretaries of Defense and wanted a Republican Secretary of Commerce. It's worth noting that one of those Republican appointees caused the first ever filibuster of a nomination for Secretary of Defense.
Even if he hadn't have his appointees been so outrageous that they justify the sheer number of times the Senate needs sixty votes to approve?
But I don't accept this view in the abstract. I understand the benefit of bipartisanship over legislation, for example, or Supreme Court nominees. But surely what matters above all in appointments made by the executive is that the President has confidence in them. It's an odd view that you elect a President every four years and give them a mandate, but then say that their executive should be a coalition.
Hopefully one benefit of this will be a moving towards the voters by the Republicans. If they're worried about that 10% vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary and ageing Supreme Court justices the easiest answer is to be really happy with the results, is to win a Presidential election.