Finally: Senate Democrats Begin to Reform Filibuster Rules
31 replies, posted
[quote][b]In an unprecedented move today, Senate democrats invoked the so-called "nuclear option," making it easier for Senators to block filibusters of executive or judicial nominees.[/b] ...
That will allow nominees to proceed on straight party lines and, in the short term, allow President Obama to fill a number of empty seats on circuit courts and within the government. ...
The filibusters have become increasingly common since the Clinton and Bush administrations, used not just to block excessively ideological nominees but to prevent any nominee from advancing, stymying both courts and cabinet positions. [/quote]
[url]http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/21/5130420/senate-democrats-rewrite-filibuster-rules-amid-widespread-obstruction[/url]
Senators are calling this the 'Nuclear Option' and Republicans are complaining that it is not fair that they are not as powerful. Hopefully Filibusters will be completely eliminated soon - this is just for appointing positions.
This could easily fuck the Democrats in the ass later on down the road, so the Republicans have no room to argue about the "unfairness" this poses.
Filibusters are a useful tool for any minority party, the problem is they've become overused since George W. Bush and even further with Obama.
Democrats were on the opposite end of this 'nuclear option' not too long ago under the Bush administration but struck a deal to avoid it.
Now to prevent them from pinning on unrelated stuff.
[QUOTE=Charades;42942676]Filibusters are a useful tool for any minority party, the problem is they've become overused since George W. Bush and even further with Obama.
Democrats were on the opposite end of this 'nuclear option' not too long ago under the Bush administration but struck a deal to avoid it.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this.
No way they'll follow this through. No one wants to destroy the fillibuster rules because you'll end up on the other side of it in a few years.
[QUOTE=Mackalda2k6;42942881]No way they'll follow this through. No one wants to destroy the fillibuster rules because you'll end up on the other side of it in a few years.[/QUOTE]
And we all know politicians are that shortsighted.
[sp]the sad part is i don't actually know if this is sarcastic or not[/sp]
I don't know too much about politics, so this may oversimplifying. It seems kind of stupid for people to get paid to read a phone book or dictionary for 12 hours instead of legislating.
[QUOTE=Falubii;42943016]I don't know too much about politics, so this may oversimplifying. It seems kind of stupid for people to get paid to read a phone book or dictionary for 12 hours instead of legislating.[/QUOTE]
IIRC it has to be at least slightly relevant.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;42943055]IIRC it has to be at least slightly relevant.[/QUOTE]
Don't know man, there's been some pretty stupid shit said.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;42943055]IIRC it has to be at least slightly relevant.[/QUOTE]
Then why do we hear about phone books and Green Eggs and Ham being read on the floor?
[QUOTE=Mackalda2k6;42942881]No way they'll follow this through. No one wants to destroy the fillibuster rules because you'll end up on the other side of it in a few years.[/QUOTE]
It is only for presidential nominees which the republicans were blocking no matter what. Some nominees have been waiting for something around a year to get confirmed.
The exception is for bills and such and supreme court nominees which still need a super majority if there is a filibuster.
There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong with a simple majority to give someone a job (51 out of 100 votes) instead of a super majority to give someone a job (60 out of 100).
These rules can be changed back with another vote and all will be well when it is no longer needed.
The problem now is that republicans will further refuse to let the government function properly and we all know how that turned out.
I really do not understand how this, or the possible elimination of the filibuster, could ever be seen as a bad thing for anything other than Constitutional Amendments.
Mad that your 49 people cannot pass anything? Get more people on your side with a compromise. Can't? Win the next election! It's mindnumbing to imagine justification for allowing the minority party to hold up nealy any bill or vote.
[QUOTE=person11;42944754]I really do not understand how this, or the possible elimination of the filibuster, could ever be seen as a bad thing for anything other than Constitutional Amendments.
Mad that your 49 people cannot pass anything? Get more people on your side with a compromise. Can't? Win the next election! It's mindnumbing to imagine justification for allowing the minority party to hold up nealy any bill or vote.[/QUOTE]
Imagine if a great national tragedy struck. 80% of Americans want to hold some small minority very accountable for the tragedy. 20% of Americans are more level headed, and are satisfied that the justice system will serve the perpetrators and spare the innocent.
Let's then assume that the representatives in Legislature match that 80-20 desire. The 20 have no 'real' way to stop a direct vote.
BUT! That's why our legislative procedures have these types of administrative choke points in place. To protect minorities and give them a chance to stand up. Watch "Mister Smith goes to Washington" for a cinematic example of a 'good' fillibuster (the rules concerning Fillibusters changed 15 or so years after the film, and after Strom Thurmond's infamous one, but they're still effective.)
It is half by design and half by accident that these choke points exist. Another such choke point is the 'incidental veto' that the President can issue, by simply refusing to sign a bill into law without actually vetoing it.
If we played the "51 is all you need all the time" game, then we would be slaves to populists. Anyone could be grabbed out of their homes, laws could be made whenever they wished to be, whole books of law rewritten, just because "51" felt like it was good.
Thank god that's not how it works.
[QUOTE=valkery;42942634]This could easily fuck the Democrats in the ass later on down the road, so the Republicans have no room to argue about the "unfairness" this poses.[/QUOTE]
In fact, the Republicans are outright threatening to make full use of this against the Dems if they get control of the Senate in 2014. They're embracing the "unfairness" except that it's being used against them.
I'll be laughing when conservative bills start going through a lot quicker and people start complaining.
Filibusters are insanely childish, good good, this brings a positive change to the broken political system of the USA.
What this guy's doing may be fucked up, but it's definitely funny. He should read books to little kids.
[video=youtube;o9EX2XkpPgE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9EX2XkpPgE[/video]
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;42944816]Imagine if a great national tragedy struck. 80% of Americans want to hold some small minority very accountable for the tragedy. 20% of Americans are more level headed, and are satisfied that the justice system will serve the perpetrators and spare the innocent.
Let's then assume that the representatives in Legislature match that 80-20 desire. The 20 have no 'real' way to stop a direct vote.
BUT! That's why our legislative procedures have these types of administrative choke points in place. To protect minorities and give them a chance to stand up. Watch "Mister Smith goes to Washington" for a cinematic example of a 'good' fillibuster (the rules concerning Fillibusters changed 15 or so years after the film, and after Strom Thurmond's infamous one, but they're still effective.)
It is half by design and half by accident that these choke points exist. Another such choke point is the 'incidental veto' that the President can issue, by simply refusing to sign a bill into law without actually vetoing it.
If we played the "51 is all you need all the time" game, then we would be slaves to populists. Anyone could be grabbed out of their homes, laws could be made whenever they wished to be, whole books of law rewritten, just because "51" felt like it was good.
Thank god that's not how it works.[/QUOTE]
Representative politics are meant to separate the will of the people from the will of the legislature. I get what you are saying, but there are few times in which the Senate matches public opinion.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;42943081]nope
it can be anything as long as you don't use foul language[/QUOTE]
Someone should send in a ton of deviant art 'literature' pages, that are censored just enough to keep them from being barred from use to a senator looking for filibuster material.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;42945034]I'll be laughing when conservative bills start going through a lot quicker and people start complaining.[/QUOTE]
Except that this change only applies to executive and judicial nominees up to but not including the Supreme Court. It doesn't affect the passage of bills at all. Way to not read the summary.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;42945623]Except that this change only applies to executive and judicial nominees up to but not including the Supreme Court. It doesn't affect the passage of bills at all. Way to not read the summary.[/QUOTE]
Well, pardon me for my inferior reading skills.
*I'll be laughing if and when conservatives get into the executive and judicial positions and start doing the crazy things.
[editline]22nd November 2013[/editline]
But unfortunately that's a lot less likely with the presidency and senate held by Democrats so I won't get to laugh anytime soon.
Eliminating the filibuster is kind of a bad thing. There was an abortion law in texas recently that would have passed, and subsequently fucked up things for a bunch of women, if not for a particular lady state rep who filibustered the fuck out of the state congress to put off the vote so it wouldn't get voted on.
[editline]22nd November 2013[/editline]
I know this bill doesn't do that, but the OP mentioned that as a desire.
Aaaaaand then this, too, gets filibustered.
[QUOTE=person11;42945110]Representative politics are meant to separate the will of the corporations from the will of the legislature. I get what you are saying, but there are few times in which the Senate matches public opinion.[/QUOTE]
Reality Checked.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42946767]Eliminating the filibuster is kind of a bad thing. There was an abortion law in texas recently that would have passed, and subsequently fucked up things for a bunch of women, if not for a particular lady state rep who filibustered the fuck out of the state congress to put off the vote so it wouldn't get voted on.
[editline]22nd November 2013[/editline]
I know this bill doesn't do that, but the OP mentioned that as a desire.[/QUOTE]
I'm ok with people talking a lot but I'm not a fan of procedural filibusters.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42946767]Eliminating the filibuster is kind of a bad thing. There was an abortion law in texas recently that would have passed, and subsequently fucked up things for a bunch of women, if not for a particular lady state rep who filibustered the fuck out of the state congress to put off the vote so it wouldn't get voted on.[/QUOTE]
Except that the Republicans rammed it through anyway soon after, so all that filibuster did was annoy Rick Perry's team and generate lots of publicity. So, so much for filibusters even being effective if the majority has the clout to force it to happen until it works.
Filibusters that require standing for 12 hours are really admirable and they make a good point. I am against filibusters that just involve 41 people sitting down and deciding to block legislation forever.
There is no way this could work out poorly for the Dems when majority and minority parties eventually switch.
we need a proportional voting system
when we have that, third parties become an option.
then you can have political parties that don't blatantly align with either "i am entirely 'leftist'" and "i am entirely rightist" and then these parties can negotiate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.