Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[Matt1970]

I don't think you understand what that is all about. The way the senate was constitutionally constructed to protect minority rights was to give two senators to every state regardless of population. The filibuster is simply a rule of the senate that was never even attempted until after all the framers were dead.

To say that the filibuster is what protected minority rights and that it's abolition in this case represents the removal of the minority's rights means that the Constitution never intended to protect minority rights. Since conservatives are all about original intent, this should make you happy.

Obama would disagree. Well, in 2005 he would.

Uhh, and, what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'm genuinely curious about what you even mean by this post. Bush appointed quite a few judges to the DC Court of Appeals, more than Obama has. All of his appointees were right wing, at least one of them dramatically so.

What do you mean by 'stack' the court, anyway? Are you trying to say 'pack' the court? This has been a frequent refrain by conservatives when talking about this issue, but it's a major misuse or misunderstanding of the term. Filling open seats is not court packing.

When the court has more than a majority of people with a certain ideology; those on the other side consider it packed.

Liberals used to be so concerned that there might be 6 conservatives on the Supreme Court and would destroy the progress that liberals had made.
that the Republicans might be able to pack the court to the point that anything the liberals were for might not pass muster.

And you can flip the labels if it pleases you.

so any court that is not setup neutrally; will be considered pack/stack/loaded,etc by those on the other side of the spectrum

 

[fskimospy]

When the court has more than a majority of people with a certain ideology; those on the other side consider it packed.

Liberals used to be so concerned that there might be 6 conservatives on the Supreme Court and would destroy the progress that liberals had made.
that the Republicans might be able to pack the court to the point that anything the liberals were for might not pass muster.

And you can flip the labels if it pleases you.

so any court that is not setup neutrally; will be considered pack/stack/loaded,etc by those on the other side of the spectrum

This is simply an incorrect definition of the word. Court packing is where FDR attempted to add additional seats to the US Supreme Court for the express purpose of altering its ideological persuasion. He was not filling vacancies that normally had arisen, he was attempting to alter the entire institution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

The Republicans were attempting to use it in this case because it implies an illegitimate attempt to alter a court to serve political ends. Simply nominating judges that you agree with is not court packing in any way, shape, or form. This is just an attempt at partisan spin.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's actually quite comical to review all the quotes from Democrats in 2005. When Republicans get control again they should eliminate the filibuster in it's entirely.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama would disagree. Well, in 2005 he would.

Uhh, and, what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

So? Do you really want me to supply the enormous list of Republicans on the record back in 2005 as saying that filibustering judicial nominees was unconstitutional?

Obama was wrong. If you can find me evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended the Senate to enact normal business by a supermajority vote please present it. The Constitution is very specific that some things require a supermajority, but there is nothing about the Senate routinely requiring it. The fact that the first filibuster didn't happen until 1837 (after every last founding father was dead) certainly doesn't provide support for it.

 

[fskimospy]

It's actually quite comical to review all the quotes from Democrats in 2005. When Republicans get control again they should eliminate the filibuster in it's entirely.

It is also quite comical to review all the quotes from Republicans in 2005 declaring judicial filibusters unconstitutional. I guess they believe in a living Constitution after all!

But yes, the Republicans should eliminate the filibuster in its entirety. So should the Democrats.

I think my favorite one was McConnell in 2005:

“The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”

So McConnell was so against filibustering judges that he thought the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION was at stake. You would think he would be congratulating the Democrats on saving the Union.

 

[D-Man]

The United States is a representative Republic with majority rule and minority rights and the Democrats just took the rights away from the minority.

You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever - Joe Biden 2005

Right on. I know all politicians flip flop on all kinds of issues some because that learned their position was wrong and some just flat lied. This latest flip flop is way over the line The Dems in my opinion just crossed the line of sanity. I Believe Obama, Biden, Hillary and Reid correctly stated their positions in 2005

 

[Matt1970]

So? Do you really want me to supply the enormous list of Republicans on the record back in 2005 as saying that filibustering judicial nominees was unconstitutional?

Obama was wrong. If you can find me evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended the Senate to enact normal business by a supermajority vote please present it. The Constitution is very specific that some things require a supermajority, but there is nothing about the Senate routinely requiring it. The fact that the first filibuster didn't happen until 1837 (after every last founding father was dead) certainly doesn't provide support for it.

How can he be wrong? He taught the constitution for 10 years. Sounds like your argument is really with Obama, not me.

 

[fskimospy]

How can he be wrong? He taught the constitution for 10 years. Sounds like your argument is really with Obama, not me.

Since Obama hasn't been contributing to this thread I guess I'm stuck with you.

Also, Obama has since come around to my way of thinking, so unless you have access to a time machine where I can debate 2005 Obama we're out of luck. Also, if you have a time machine there would be way cooler things we could do with it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is also quite comical to review all the quotes from Republicans in 2005 declaring judicial filibusters unconstitutional. I guess they believe in a living Constitution after all!

But yes, the Republicans should eliminate the filibuster in its entirety. So should the Democrats.

I think my favorite one was McConnell in 2005:


So McConnell was so against filibustering judges that he thought the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION was at stake. You would think he would be congratulating the Democrats on saving the Union.

The Constitution isn't at stake. All this does is extend partisan influence, and that's what this is really about. The minority party has been made irrelevant, which is what the Republicans feared, and for the moment the Democrats gain. The fortunes of power change and when they do much of what you like will be undone or subverted and the Democrats will respond in kind.

While it's restricted to fighting amongst parties and the only thing that suffers is the nation and not potential extinction, Pournell and Niven's "The Mote in Gods eye" books does seem parallel what has been delivered, regular and dependable destruction of what was done before. Well it's not at all hard to see. Another step down the spiral.

 

[fskimospy]

The Constitution isn't at stake. All this does is extend partisan influence, and that's what this is really about. The minority party has been made irrelevant, which is what the Republicans feared, and for the moment the Democrats gain. The fortunes of power change and when they do much of what you like will be undone or subverted and the Democrats will respond in kind.

While it's restricted to fighting amongst parties and the only thing that suffers is the nation and not potential extinction, Pournell and Niven's "The Mote in Gods eye" books does seem parallel what has been delivered, regular and dependable destruction of what was done before. Well it's not at all hard to see. Another step down the spiral.

I've been a big supporter of eliminating the filibuster in its entirety for several years now, this is with the full knowledge that Republicans will be able to do some things that I don't like. This is a GOOD thing. Legislative paralysis has crippled the ability of the US government to deal with evolving circumstances.

This is a big step up the spiral for both Democrats and Republicans. While maybe Republicans get mad about judges today, if the electorate rewards them with the Senate in the future they will be able to actually implement a governing agenda.

The next step should be the utter abolition of the filibuster in all circumstances. That's the goal we should all be working towards. Maybe it would be best if the Republicans did it if they gain the Senate in 2014, that way we have a bipartisan agreement on its demolition.

 

[JEDI]

It's hard to see what choice the Democrats had here. The Republicans said that they would not confirm Obama's judges to the DC Court of Appeals regardless of who he nominated. The original deal was only to filibuster judges in 'extraordinary circumstances' and there is no way a rational person can deem the mere existence of an empty seat an 'extraordinary circumstance'.

Due to this clear breach of the prior deal on judicial nominations there's no reason to believe that the Republicans wouldn't break the other half of it if given the opportunity. If the other side won't abide by the agreement, it's time to scrap the agreement.

ah.. thx for the cliffs!

I was wondering why the Dems went nuclear.

so why didn't they need 60votes for this?

also, a fix for the fillabusters is to revert back to the old system where you have to speak continuously on the senate floor.

with the rule change of just saying fillabuster, it's fillabustered that its too easy to fillabuster. and leads to abuse.

if you truly don't believe in the bill, then prove it with your blood and sweat!
and stay up all nite talking!

 

[Matt1970]

Since Obama hasn't been contributing to this thread I guess I'm stuck with you.

Also, Obama has since come around to my way of thinking, so unless you have access to a time machine where I can debate 2005 Obama we're out of luck. Also, if you have a time machine there would be way cooler things we could do with it.

Obama has come around to your way of thinking ??????

 

[nehalem256]

Obama has come around to your way of thinking ??????

I believe that is more commonly called flip-flopping.

Except apparently when Obama does it. Then he is celebrated for "evolving" on the issue.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Interesting to see that one of the three current unfilled openings for the DC Circuit Court goes back to 2006 (seat vacated by John Roberts). Democrats successfully blocked Republican nominations for this seat during the 109th and 110th Congresses. Then when Republicans do the same when Dems take control of the Senate, all of a sudden the nuclear option is justified. Hmmm.

 

[cubby1223]

I've been a big supporter of eliminating the filibuster in its entirety for several years now, this is with the full knowledge that Republicans will be able to do some things that I don't like. This is a GOOD thing. Legislative paralysis has crippled the ability of the US government to deal with evolving circumstances.

The whole point of our government setup is to be slow, because power corrupts.

The next step should be the utter abolition of the filibuster in all circumstances. That's the goal we should all be working towards. Maybe it would be best if the Republicans did it if they gain the Senate in 2014, that way we have a bipartisan agreement on its demolition.

If the Republicans gain the Senate in 2014, the same voices will have done a 180. Republicans will want to keep the abolition of the filibuster while these same Democrats will give speech after speech after speech about how a proper government demands a 60-vote rule for passing legislation.

And I suspect you too will wish the filibuster was back in play for Democrats to use.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting to see that one of the three current unfilled openings for the DC Circuit Court goes back to 2006 (seat vacated by John Roberts). Democrats successfully blocked Republican nominations for this seat during the 109th and 110th Congresses. Then when Republicans do the same when Dems take control of the Senate, all of a sudden the nuclear option is justified. Hmmm.

I'm pretty sure that the impetus for this event is the position of the Republicans that NO judges would be confirmed to that court. GWB successfully appointed 4 judges to the court, all of which the Democrats could have blocked if they so chose. Obama has appointed 1, and that one only came after a huge fight and a prolonged filibuster. All the rest of his nominees have been filibustered, with the understanding that all nominees to the court will be filibustered in perpetuity. This is because the Republicans want to preserve a favorable ideological balance.

Serious question, if Republicans had instead chosen to block Obama's executive and judicial nominees at an identical rate to the blockage rate for GWB do you believe for a second this would have happened? I don't.

 

[fskimospy]

The whole point of our government setup is to be slow, because power corrupts.

Yes. Our government was designed to need a majority of the House, the Senate, and the President's signature to pass legislation. There is absolutely nothing about a supermajority requirement in the Senate for appointments or to pass legislation. Zip. Zero. Nada.

If the Republicans gain the Senate in 2014, the same voices will have done a 180. Republicans will want to keep the abolition of the filibuster while these same Democrats will give speech after speech after speech about how a proper government demands a 60-vote rule for passing legislation.

And I suspect you too will wish the filibuster was back in play for Democrats to use.

I can't speak for what the Democrats will do, but I know my opinion on the filibuster won't change. Feel free to bookmark this post and see. It should be eliminated in its entirety, immediately.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm pretty sure that the impetus for this event is the position of the Republicans that NO judges would be confirmed to that court. GWB successfully appointed 4 judges to the court, all of which the Democrats could have blocked if they so chose. Obama has appointed 1, and that one only came after a huge fight and a prolonged filibuster. All the rest of his nominees have been filibustered, with the understanding that all nominees to the court will be filibustered in perpetuity. This is because the Republicans want to preserve a favorable ideological balance.

Serious question, if Republicans had instead chosen to block Obama's executive and judicial nominees at an identical rate to the blockage rate for GWB do you believe for a second this would have happened? I don't.

Compared to other relatively recent President's I don't think Obama has been that unfairly treated.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43058.pdf

 

[Moonbeam]

Take your meds.

Liberals called the republicans terrorists. because they are afraid.

Or is it that when liberals call others terrorists, that's not demonizing them? LOL

There isn't an issue between liberals and conservatives that each side can't
see exactly the opposite of the other. What you constantly fail to consider is that science has demonstrated that it is conservative who can't think rationally where their emotions are involved. Your side has proven to reason defectively and it's obvious to liberals. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change reality. This is why you are known to inhabit a bubble. Sorry!

 

[fskimospy]

Compared to other relatively recent President's I don't think Obama has been that unfairly treated.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43058.pdf

From that information I don't see how. Clinton and Bush had a Senate chamber controlled by the opposing party for half of their first term. Reagan had a friendly Senate for his whole first term. Obama not only had a friendly Senate for his first term, but an overwhelmingly friendly one for the first half.

Even with this large advantage, his nomination percentages are much lower than any president but GHWB who had an oppositional Senate for his entire term. What has happened is that (for the most part) we have replaced rejection by the Senate majority with filibuster by the Senate minority. Those two things are not remotely the same.

The evidence on this is unequivocal:
Number of cloture votes on executive branch appointments in all of US history from 1789 through 2008: 32

Number of cloture votes on executive branch appointments from 2009-2012: 23

Number of cloture votes on judicial appointments in all of US history from 1789 through 2008: 36

Number of cloture votes on judicial appointments from 2009-2012: 31

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*P,;< P

Note that these only go up through June of 2012. The numbers for both are even higher at this point; if I'm not mistaken Obama has now had more appointments filibustered than every other president in all of US history before him combined.

So no, I don't think Obama has had his appointments treated fairly.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

From that information I don't see how. Clinton and Bush had a Senate chamber controlled by the opposing party for half of their first term. Reagan had a friendly Senate for his whole first term. Obama not only had a friendly Senate for his first term, but an overwhelmingly friendly one for the first half.

Even with this large advantage, his nomination percentages are much lower than any president but GHWB who had an oppositional Senate for his entire term. What has happened is that (for the most part) we have replaced rejection by the Senate majority with filibuster by the Senate minority. Those two things are not remotely the same.

The evidence on this is unequivocal:
Number of cloture votes on executive branch appointments in all of US history from 1789 through 2008: 32

Number of cloture votes on executive branch appointments from 2009-2012: 23

Number of cloture votes on judicial appointments in all of US history from 1789 through 2008: 36

Number of cloture votes on judicial appointments from 2009-2012: 31

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%2C%3B%3C%20P%20%20%0A

Note that these only go up through June of 2012. The numbers for both are even higher at this point; if I'm not mistaken Obama has now had more appointments filibustered than every other president in all of US history before him combined.

So no, I don't think Obama has had his appointments treated fairly.

I think that on executive branch appointments your point is valid but if you look at the judicial nominations objectively (i.e. no cherry picking) Obama's treatment hasn't been too bad. I believe we've previously had this conversation somewhere.

 

[Matt1970]

As of November 7, 2013, the total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 211, including two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 39 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 168 judges to the United States district courts, and two judges to the United States Court of International Trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

 

[fskimospy]

I think that on executive branch appointments your point is valid but if you look at the judicial nominations objectively (i.e. no cherry picking) Obama's treatment hasn't been too bad. I believe we've previously had this conversation somewhere.

Maybe we have, but how is having almost as many judicial nominees filibustered in 4 years as were filibustered in the combined 220 years before you 'not too bad'?

Also, what do you mean about cherry picking? We're just looking at all the cases of cloture, which really is the broadest and least cherry-pickable way possible. Despite Obama having a majority in the Senate for his entire presidency so far he has a confirmation rate that's closest to the president that had almost the inverse.

 

[Savatar]

Maybe we have, but how is having almost as many judicial nominees filibustered in 4 years as were filibustered in the combined 220 years before you 'not too bad'?

Also, what do you mean about cherry picking? We're just looking at all the cases of cloture, which really is the broadest and least cherry-pickable way possible. Despite Obama having a majority in the Senate for his entire presidency so far he has a confirmation rate that's closest to the president that had almost the inverse.

I suggest this might be a sign that both parties have driven farther apart than they have been in the past, and not just animosity or 'unprecedented filibustering'. That's a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself. There isn't any nomination that is as reasonable to both sides as bipartisan anymore... and both sides are digging in their shoes on certain issues/positions that they see as normal. Over the next few years we may see a big shift in American political parties one way or the other.