Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well that's the thing though, when Republicans didn't have the ball they violated the Senate's norms so egregiously that the nuclear option was inevitable. I think Reid's only mistake was not to completely remove the filibuster.

I would agree overall that governing norms in the Senate have been wearing away for the last few decades, but there is simply no precedent for what the Republican Senate minority/majority has been doing in recent years. If you think there is an equivalent to the misuse of the filibuster, the refusal to staff the executive branch, and the total embargo of SCOTUS nominations I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

To me it seems the answer is pretty clear. Both sides do it to some extent, but one has been far, far worse during the last decade.
So the Democrats did something that had never before been done - but it's the Republicans' fault. Who could have foreseen that little bit of "logic"?

Oh, right - everyone.

I'm saying it can't be "unconstitutional" for them not to put it up for a vote if there is no constitutional requirement for them to vote. They are required to provide advice and consent, but there's nothing that says how quickly they have to do so.
Absolutely true. What a lot of us are saying is that there SHOULD be something added to the Constitution to mandate them actually doing their job.

I don't give a flying fart about the filibuster in day to day operations - I think there are far too many laws and bills passed anyway. No one's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session. However, where a branch has specifically designated Constitutional duties, then those duties should be carried out honestly and in a timely fashion. President Obama's making a fiasco of his Constitutional enforcement duties with illegal immigration isn't one bit worse than the Republican Congress' dereliction of its duties on advice and consent, and rules lawyering doesn't make it any better.

Then they never have to put it up for a vote and putting that line in the Constitution was a stupid thing for our forefathers to do.
It shall henceforth be known as the "Advice and Consent or Whatever" provision.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yes, not just nominating idiots. The senate has had to do a lot more to fend off all sorts of terrible ideas, bad legislation, executive power grabs (like him trying to pretend the senate was out of session etc), terrible nominations and so forth.

The Senate, iirc, was out of session but a few tea party HOR members held rump sessions on the usual schedule. Bring the meeting to order- motion to adjourn until the next day- seconded & done. It's not like they did anything other than prevent recess appointments. It's pure spite, obstructionism & the kind of lie that only Repubs can tell with a straight face.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Are you saying you disagree? If so, why? :)
Because we're all responsible for our own actions. Reid could have done what the Pubbies did when the Democrats stopped Bush's nominations - work with the Democrats and drop the most egregious nominees to get the others a vote. Instead he chose to go nuclear. That's on him and no one else. (Or perhaps on Reid and whichever Democrat Party bosses had to agree to make it happen.)

Note that I have no problem with his choice; I do not believe that holds and filibusters should be acceptable for clearly delineated Constitutional duties such as budgets & spending bills, or advise & consent for Presidential nominees, at least in open-ended form. (I would have no problem with holds and filibusters based on gaining time to bring out or investigate some specific point.) I only have a problem with his supporters' pretending that he was forced into it. His decision to use the nuclear option was his and his alone, and giving him a pass (even where I agree with his decision) is a very dangerous precedent. There is precious little accountability in D.C. now, we certainly don't need to further water it down with "you made me hit you".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Because we're all responsible for our own actions. Reid could have done what the Pubbies did when the Democrats stopped Bush's nominations - work with the Democrats and drop the most egregious nominees to get the others a vote. Instead he chose to go nuclear. That's on him and no one else. (Or perhaps on Reid and whichever Democrat Party bosses had to agree to make it happen.)

Note that I have no problem with his choice; I do not believe that holds and filibusters should be acceptable for clearly delineated Constitutional duties such as budgets & spending bills, or advise & consent for Presidential nominees, at least in open-ended form. (I would have no problem with holds and filibusters based on gaining time to bring out or investigate some specific point.) I only have a problem with his supporters' pretending that he was forced into it. His decision to use the nuclear option was his and his alone, and giving him a pass (even where I agree with his decision) is a very dangerous precedent. There is precious little accountability in D.C. now, we certainly don't need to further water it down with "you made me hit you".

To agree with this would require rewriting history though. What actually happened was that in 2005 Republicans and Democrats did in fact come to an agreement where Democrats would confirm a number of Republican judges in exchange for keeping the judicial filibuster. It was then agreed upon that such a filibuster would only be used in 'extraordinary circumstances'. Once out of power Republicans then proceeded to use the filibuster on almost twice as many nominees in 4 years under Obama as Democrats had used in eight years under Bush. In fact, this number was so high that it nearly equaled the total number of filibusters of nominees for all of US history up to that point.

There is no way a sane or rational person could say that Republicans were using the filibuster only in 'extraordinary circumstances', meaning they were in violation of the prior agreement. As I agree with you that accountability is in short supply, egregious violations of explicit agreements need to have consequences.

Saying Reid's action is 'they made me do it' is no more valid than saying the state's justification for putting a criminal in prison is 'they made me do it'. Actions have consequences and it's important to enforce those consequences. If the Republicans had wanted to keep the judicial filibuster they should have kept their word.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
To agree with this would require rewriting history though. What actually happened was that in 2005 Republicans and Democrats did in fact come to an agreement where Democrats would confirm a number of Republican judges in exchange for keeping the judicial filibuster. It was then agreed upon that such a filibuster would only be used in 'extraordinary circumstances'. Once out of power Republicans then proceeded to use the filibuster on almost twice as many nominees in 4 years under Obama as Democrats had used in eight years under Bush. In fact, this number was so high that it nearly equaled the total number of filibusters of nominees for all of US history up to that point.

There is no way a sane or rational person could say that Republicans were using the filibuster only in 'extraordinary circumstances', meaning they were in violation of the prior agreement. As I agree with you that accountability is in short supply, egregious violations of explicit agreements need to have consequences.

Saying Reid's action is 'they made me do it' is no more valid than saying the state's justification for putting a criminal in prison is 'they made me do it'. Actions have consequences and it's important to enforce those consequences. If the Republicans had wanted to keep the judicial filibuster they should have kept their word.
Math is hard, but still worth doing. If the Republicans filibustered "almost twice as many nominees in 4 years under Obama as Democrats had used in eight years under Bush", and that number was "so high that it nearly equaled the total number of filibusters of nominees for all of US history up to that point", then what the Democrats did to Bush was to use the filibuster in eight years so often that the number of filibustered nominees "nearly equaled the total number of filibusters of nominees for all of US history up to that point." The Democrats escalated far beyond any historical norm, and when in the same situation the Republicans then escalated by a like amount. The Democrats then removed the minority party's ability to stop nominees.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Math is hard, but still worth doing. If the Republicans filibustered "almost twice as many nominees in 4 years under Obama as Democrats had used in eight years under Bush", and that number was "so high that it nearly equaled the total number of filibusters of nominees for all of US history up to that point", then what the Democrats did to Bush was to use the filibuster in eight years so often that the number of filibustered nominees "nearly equaled the total number of filibusters of nominees for all of US history up to that point." The Democrats escalated far beyond any historical norm, and when in the same situation the Republicans then escalated by a like amount. The Democrats then removed the minority party's ability to stop nominees.

Math is indeed hard but worth doing. Reading is also hard, but once again very much worth doing. The Democrats' use of the filibuster in that way is what precipitated the 'nuclear option' agreement to stop doing it. Instead, the Republicans more than doubled that rate once they lost the presidency. To any sane person that is an egregious violation of the agreement that was made to retain the judicial filibuster, therefore no more judicial filibuster.

Do you not actually believe in accountability in DC? If you do believe in it, why are you against Republicans being held accountable?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Math is indeed hard but worth doing. Reading is also hard, but once again very much worth doing. The Democrats' use of the filibuster in that way is what precipitated the 'nuclear option' agreement to stop doing it. Instead, the Republicans more than doubled that rate once they lost the presidency. To any sane person that is an egregious violation of the agreement that was made to retain the judicial filibuster, therefore no more judicial filibuster.

Do you not actually believe in accountability in DC? If you do believe in it, why are you against Republicans being held accountable?
I'm not at all against Republicans being held accountable. They used the filibuster irresponsibly, using it en masse to protest other Obama activities over which they had no control. I'm only insisting that Democrats be similarly held accountable.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
I'm not at all against Republicans being held accountable. They used the filibuster irresponsibly, using it en masse to protest other Obama activities over which they had no control. I'm only insisting that Democrats be similarly held accountable.

Weren't they being held accountable when they were forced to accept judicial nominees they disliked along with having a promise extracted from them to largely stop filibustering nominees? Weren't the Republicans being held accountable when they broke that agreement and lost the judicial filibuster?

I don't think the filibuster should exist at all in any form after the damage it's done to our country over the last 8 years. I guarantee you I will be of that same opinion if Republicans win the Senate/Presidency going forward as well. It's just bad governance.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Weren't they being held accountable when they were forced to accept judicial nominees they disliked along with having a promise extracted from them to largely stop filibustering nominees? Weren't the Republicans being held accountable when they broke that agreement and lost the judicial filibuster?

I don't think the filibuster should exist at all in any form after the damage it's done to our country over the last 8 years. I guarantee you I will be of that same opinion if Republicans win the Senate/Presidency going forward as well. It's just bad governance.
Funny, you were supportive of it when it was the Democrats filibustering Republican nominees.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Funny, you were supportive of it when it was the Democrats filibustering Republican nominees.

I was, and I admitted in the past that I was wrong. There's of course no way to prove that I won't change my mind back when it is politically convenient, but I'm quite serious when I say that I won't. It's making our country ungovernable and no short term nominee/policy advantage is worth that.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I was, and I admitted in the past that I was wrong. There's of course no way to prove that I won't change my mind back when it is politically convenient, but I'm quite serious when I say that I won't. It's making our country ungovernable and no short term nominee/policy advantage is worth that.
Agreed, and I'll take you at your word that you won't change your mind again when it is politically convenient.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Funny, you were supportive of it when it was the Democrats filibustering Republican nominees.

Did liberals elect Bush? Did they announce that money is speech or corporations are people. Isn't it a conservative court that destroyed democracy in the US? You just don't want to see that modern conservative thinking is so team focused on winning that the game, not the country, is all that matters. Your constant focus on moral equivalency is insane. One of the parties is not like the other and anybody not attached to either can see it easily. We have had a conservative court for ages and ages. It's time for that to change. Have a care that conservative mental illness doesn't create a world of authoritarian liberals. The signs that this is happening are everywhere.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Agreed, and I'll take you at your word that you won't change your mind again when it is politically convenient.

Kinda moot anyway. Now that it's gone neither party is going to bring it back since they'd need to be in the majority to do so and it's a practice designed to help the minority party. It's gone forever now for better or worse. Probably better IMHO but it might take some time to see if there are unintended consequences we haven't yet thought of.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Did liberals elect Bush? Did they announce that money is speech or corporations are people. Isn't it a conservative court that destroyed democracy in the US? You just don't want to see that modern conservative thinking is so team focused on winning that the game, not the country, is all that matters. Your constant focus on moral equivalency is insane. One of the parties is not like the other and anybody not attached to either can see it easily. We have had a conservative court for ages and ages. It's time for that to change. Have a care that conservative mental illness doesn't create a world of authoritarian liberals. The signs that this is happening are everywhere.
No court has destroyed democracy in the US - that's the people's job. We now have a choice between two horrible sociopaths. That's on us.

Kinda moot anyway. Now that it's gone neither party is going to bring it back since they'd need to be in the majority to do so and it's a practice designed to help the minority party. It's gone forever now for better or worse. Probably better IMHO but it might take some time to see if there are unintended consequences we haven't yet thought of.
Probably better.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136