Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[BUnit1701]

Lets take the whole matter down to brass tacks, the high number of filibusters is a symptom of the hyper-partisan situation in this country. Even 15-20 years ago, the ideological gap could be spanned, but today the two groups have such differing views there is no common ground to work from.

EDIT: Savatar beat me with essentially the same idea.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...only-four-nominations-defeated-mcconnell-say/

Like they say about "facts"...it's all in the picking!

 

[fskimospy]

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 will see a big shift in American political parties one way or the other.

I actually agree that political polarization is the cause and this is one of the symptoms. It doesn't change the fact that this continued and increasing polarization has led to a situation where efficiently staffing the government is becoming extremely difficult. Sometimes our processes need to evolve with our circumstances.

Furthermore, research into this shows that while both parties have become more polarized to some degree, Republicans have become more conservative at a much greater rate than Democrats have become more liberal. Here's a view of the shift in House DW-NOMINATE scores since 1879: (yes I know it's the house, but that's better sampling and I see no particular reason why the overall trend would be different with the Senate)

 

[michal1980]

I actually agree that political polarization is the cause and this is one of the symptoms. It doesn't change the fact that this continued and increasing polarization has led to a situation where efficiently staffing the government is becoming extremely difficult. Sometimes our processes need to evolve with our circumstances.

Furthermore, research into this shows that while both parties have become more polarized to some degree, Republicans have become more conservative at a much greater rate than Democrats have become more liberal. Here's a view of the shift in House DW-NOMINATE scores since 1879: (yes I know it's the house, but that's better sampling and I see no particular reason why the overall trend would be different with the Senate)

democrats have been getting more liberal at a slower rate, but for a longer time.


And heres more proof the msm is liberal.

NYT 2005, against the nuclear option, 2013 for the nuclear option.

Only difference? Who's in charge this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html?_r=2&

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html

LOL

 

[fskimospy]

democrats have been getting more liberal at a slower rate, but for a longer time.


And heres more proof the msm is liberal.

NYT 2005, against the nuclear option, 2013 for the nuclear option.

Only difference? Who's in charge this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html?_r=2&

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html

LOL

Uhmm, you need to read that chart better. It says nothing of the sort.

Also, linking the times editorial page to prove the media is liberal is like me linking the WSJ editorial page to prove the media is conservative.

Stupid.

 

[michal1980]

Uhmm, you need to read that chart better. It says nothing of the sort.

Also, linking the times editorial page to prove the media is liberal is like me linking the WSJ editorial page to prove the media is conservative.

Stupid.

I did read the chart. You need to look at it closer. or are you too biased.

 

[fskimospy]

I did read the chart. You need to look at it closer. or are you too biased.

Not only have I read the chart, but one of the guys that made it was my professor in college, where we covered it quite thoroughly.

You realize that the -1,1 scale is an absolute value, not a measurement of the rate of change, right?

 

[rudder]

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.

What I am trying to say is that Obama is trying to have a court that will not argue against the constitutionality of having the EPA, as an example, make laws. This has been obama's game plan to get federal agencies more power and bypass congress. The DC circuit court is the one who answers as to whether these types of regulations violate federal law.

 

[First]

What I am trying to say is that Obama is trying to have a court that will not argue against the constitutionality of having the EPA, as an example, make laws. This has been obama's game plan to get federal agencies more power and bypass congress. The DC circuit court is the one who answers as to whether these types of regulations violate federal law.

Isn't that pretty much incidental given that a POTUS' agenda is always going to be helped by appointing their ideological counterparts to the DC circuit court, though? Like, as in always?

 

[shira]

Ah, our resident apologist. How have you been? Good to see you never change.

Explain how making factual statements constitutes being an "apologist."

The Republicans do something unprecedented in the history of the republic by holding the debt limit hostage in order to coerce the majority party to make concessions, and you're all for that.

The Democrats do something that has several precedents in the history of the republic by changing the filibuster rules for specific cases (in this instance, note that the filibuster is alive and well for all Senate business EXCEPT for Presidential appointments to head agencies and the the non-Supreme federal courts) and you think the Dems are slime.

So who's the real apologist here?

 

[fskimospy]

What I am trying to say is that Obama is trying to have a court that will not argue against the constitutionality of having the EPA, as an example, make laws. This has been obama's game plan to get federal agencies more power and bypass congress. The DC circuit court is the one who answers as to whether these types of regulations violate federal law.

Courts aren't supposed to argue for or against anything, they are supposed to apply the law. If you mean that Obama will appoint judges with a different view of the regulatory powers granted to the EPA...well... okay.

You are free to be upset if the courts interpret the law in ways you don't agree with, but that doesn't make their legal opinions or their appointment illegitimate.

 

[michal1980]

Courts aren't supposed to argue for or against anything, they are supposed to apply the law. If you mean that Obama will appoint judges with a different view of the regulatory powers granted to the EPA...well... okay.

You are free to be upset if the courts interpret the law in ways you don't agree with, but that doesn't make their legal opinions or their appointment illegitimate.

Yes it does.

 

[michal1980]

Explain how making factual statements constitutes being an "apologist."

The Republicans do something unprecedented in the history of the republic by holding the debt limit hostage in order to coerce the majority party to make concessions, and you're all for that.

The Democrats do something that has several precedents in the history of the republic by changing the filibuster rules for specific cases (in this instance, note that the filibuster is alive and well for all Senate business EXCEPT for Presidential appointments to head agencies and the the non-Supreme federal courts) and you think the Dems are slime.

So who's the real apologist here?

the spin is strong in this post.

If the democrats did something that happened regularly. it wouldn't have been called the nuclear option..

 

[Zorkorist]

It's Federal "Government."

Who cares?

-John

 

[Matt1970]

Explain how making factual statements constitutes being an "apologist."

The Republicans do something unprecedented in the history of the republic by holding the debt limit hostage in order to coerce the majority party to make concessions, and you're all for that.

The Democrats do something that has several precedents in the history of the republic by changing the filibuster rules for specific cases (in this instance, note that the filibuster is alive and well for all Senate business EXCEPT for Presidential appointments to head agencies and the the non-Supreme federal courts) and you think the Dems are slime.

So who's the real apologist here?

You wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit you in the ass. Unprecedented? Try, precedent set 18 times since 1974.

 

[cubby1223]

Explain how making factual statements constitutes being an "apologist."

The Republicans do something unprecedented in the history of the republic by holding the debt limit hostage in order to coerce the majority party to make concessions, and you're all for that.

The Democrats do something that has several precedents in the history of the republic by changing the filibuster rules for specific cases (in this instance, note that the filibuster is alive and well for all Senate business EXCEPT for Presidential appointments to head agencies and the the non-Supreme federal courts) and you think the Dems are slime.

So who's the real apologist here?

Wow, you're even dumber than I had ever suspected! I remember Obama once giving a lengthy opposition speech and voting against a debt limit increase. It was a 52-48 vote tally with all Democrats voting against increasing the debt ceiling. Guess that "slipped" your mind in your pursuit of internet glory.

You've proven yourself incapable of making factual statements.

I am under no obligation to respond to your inquiry when you are so deliberately disrespectful to the truth.

If you want my opinion, I am opposed to the filibuster being removed by Democrats, I am opposed to the filibuster being removed by Republicans. I am consistent. When the Democrats held the debt ceiling hostage, I didn't give a fuck, because I knew the U.S. would not default. When the Republicans held the debt ceiling hostage, again I didn't give a fuck, because I knew the U.S. would not default. I am consistent, not partisan.

You, however, are. Have fun with your pathetic life.

 

[Matt1970]

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!

Now accepting donations of brain cells so Moonbeam can come up with a different thought in his head.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow, you're even dumber than I had ever suspected! I remember Obama once giving a lengthy opposition speech and voting against a debt limit increase. It was a 52-48 vote tally with all Democrats voting against increasing the debt ceiling. Guess that "slipped" your mind in your pursuit of internet glory.

You've proven yourself incapable of making factual statements.

I am under no obligation to respond to your inquiry when you are so deliberately disrespectful to the truth.

If you want my opinion, I am opposed to the filibuster being removed by Democrats, I am opposed to the filibuster being removed by Republicans. I am consistent. When the Democrats held the debt ceiling hostage, I didn't give a fuck, because I knew the U.S. would not default. When the Republicans held the debt ceiling hostage, again I didn't give a fuck, because I knew the U.S. would not default. I am consistent, not partisan.

You, however, are. Have fun with your pathetic life.

How long was the shut down when the dems did it?

 

[cubby1223]

How long was the shut down when the dems did it?

Way to show you're not capable of following a conversation!

Go back to your discussion club and stroke your over-sized ego there.

Seriously, if you want to break the subject matter down to a question of who did what, how, and for what reasons, then all situations are unique... in which case you still prove my point that shira is an apologist who did not present factual statements. And that also makes you an apologist for shira. Find me a very exact parallel that shows this filibuster change by the Dems has precedence, it has been done several times previously, while simultaneously making the argument that fighting against raising the debt ceiling to change other legislation is unprecedented.

Go ahead.

Do it.

Do it or shut it.

If you can make your argument then just fucking do it once and for all. All you have is your tactic of saying nothing but implying you know more than you're willing to say. I'm not impressed, and neither is anyone else.

 

[ivwshane]

Way to show you're not capable of following a conversation!

Go back to your discussion club and stroke your over-sized ego there.

Seriously, if you want to break the subject matter down to a question of who did what, how, and for what reasons, then all situations are unique... in which case you still prove my point that shira is an apologist who did not present factual statements. And that also makes you an apologist for shira. Find me a very exact parallel that shows this filibuster change by the Dems has precedence, been done several times, while simultaneously making the argument that fighting against raising the debt ceiling to change other legislation is unprecedented.

Go ahead.

Do it.

Do it or shut it.

You sound angry, you mad bro?

I'm well aware of the fact that that both parties have tried to use the debt ceiling as a negotiation tool, I'm unaware of that working though, and I'm pretty sure a complete government shutdown over the debt ceiling has never occurred. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

While the word unprecedented might not be the best way to describe what shira was talking about I think we can both agree that uncommon is a better descriptor.

Having said all that, I'm still waiting for a different solution from you guys that deals with the abnormal use of fillibusters and extremely long confirmation holds.

Had the situation been reversed and dems had been the obstructionist, what would you want the republucans to do?

 

[trenchfoot]

I think Reid's use of the nuclear option is also a warning shot over the bow of the Repub's once impregnable but now breached legislative blockade. That option can now be used by the Dems every time the Senate Repubs even hint that they're going to filibuster some Dem sponsored legislation or executive appointment. A possible outcome of this situation is that the Dems and Repubs will make some kind of deal whereby both will agree to use the nuclear option and the filibuster with judicious restraint, which is the way these tools are supposed to be used in the first place.

IMO this move by the Dems has most importantly cut the legs out from under the Tea Party and I think its safe to say that McConnel is privately happy about this, as he now has more control and discretionary power over the process of bargaining for his side of the aisle.

Without the habitual and excessive use of the filibuster, the Repubs now have to rely on real political skills to forward their agenda, just like in the days before the Repubs use of outlandish accusations, deception and heavy handed propaganda created the Tea Party as we know and love today.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes it does.

/facepalm

 

[Moonbeam]

/facepalm

It's called truthiness, the transformation of rationalizations into truth due to the unconscious need to avoid unpleasant feelings as well as the need to avoid any knowledge that you have them. It's just as though you were inviting a paranoid schizophrenic to let go of his fear, the very thing he imagines is saving him from disaster. And when every doctor you go to tells you you're nuts you become very adept at not hearing medical advise. The conservative brain is protected from self recognition and it can't be told that. Their delusional state is their reality. The truth is the Boogie Man under the bead. Here they are extremely funny, but when they seize the wheel of the car and head for the wall their delusions see as an exit sign, it's time to pry their fingers from the wheel. This is what they fear because it's what they do. They see that as the sane having an irrational fear of them. And we'd never know who is what if the facts couldn't be scientifically measured. And that, of course, is the now completely confirmed fact that conservatives rationalize rather than reason more than liberals do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

I don't think you understand the consequences of what you ask. What you will get is more ideological extremism on both sides because the goal of parties IS TO WIN. To do so there will be more forced uniformity of thought and less cooperation than ever. Now if one is really about one's party having control at all costs this is great, however for the nation as a whole? I don't think so. Things aren't going to go towards cooperation, they are going to be less so. The number of appointments blocked are small relative to the whole, but the price will be large. You will have one side working to destroy the other with such zeal that you'll look at today as "the good old days".

So no doubt we'll hear "Good, the Tea Party did this so we'll get even". Yes, yes they will, no matter how it makes the government even more dysfunctional. The government will become two tea parties destroying everything just to get even. Yes, that will be your people on the Democrat side as well.

Some people apparently see this as some political Appomattox, where the Republicans are forced to surrender. I suggest it's not that, it's Fort Sumter with less of a good reason.

If obstruction was seen as a problem we've seen nothing yet.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's called truthiness, the transformation of rationalizations into truth due to the unconscious need to avoid unpleasant feelings as well as the need to avoid any knowledge that you have them. It's just as though you were inviting a paranoid schizophrenic to let go of his fear, the very thing he imagines is saving him from disaster. And when every doctor you go to tells you you're nuts you become very adept at not hearing medical advise. The conservative brain is protected from self recognition and it can't be told that. Their delusional state is their reality. The truth is the Boogie Man under the bead. Here they are extremely funny, but when they seize the wheel of the car and head for the wall their delusions see as an exit sign, it's time to pry their fingers from the wheel. This is what they fear because it's what they do. They see that as the sane having an irrational fear of them. And we'd never know who is what if the facts couldn't be scientifically measured. And that, of course, is the now completely confirmed fact that conservatives rationalize rather than reason more than liberals do.

This may sound all well and good, but the remedy supposedly created for the government may kill both doctor and patient, with a whole lot of collateral damage. I understand why this was done, but nuclear isn't so far off in the long run. Will it make those who feel qualified to judge over all the better for it?