Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[michal1980]

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.

You don't think this swings both ways? When republicans are in power, the democrats now wont be able to stop that agenda.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You this this swings both ways? When republicans are in power, the democrats now wont be able to stop that agenda.

On the bright side this might precipitate the collapse of the current system.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I don't think you understand our system as it already is. There really isn't significantly more the republicans can do to obstruct things. Furthermore, you realize that literally no other democracy on earth operates with this sort of system and they do just fine, right?

It is a common misunderstanding by people that think because the filibuster has been like this during their lifetimes that this is somehow how it always was. The senate operated as a simple majority institution for the first 180 or so years it existed.

The way the electorate acts has changed and our political institutions need to keep up. We suffered a damaging change to the way the senate operates a number of years back and this helps restore it to its original state. The extremism comes TO Washington FROM us. Changing the rules of Washington does nothing to alter this fact, it just makes our government more able to operate given the people it's given.

I think people here are being very shortsighted because they do t like change or their political sports team feels threatened. This is a good thing from a governance perspective, the only downside is that the filibuster wasn't eliminated entirely.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh and the idea that the group that already thinks democrats are nazis, communists, etcetera and that the president is a Kenyan Muslim who is LITERALLY attempting to destroy the US from within will suddenly now get really angry because of the judicial filibuster is...well... Funny.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think you understand our system as it already is. There really isn't significantly more the republicans can do to obstruct things. Furthermore, you realize that literally no other democracy on earth operates with this sort of system and they do just fine, right?

It is a common misunderstanding by people that think because the filibuster has been like this during their lifetimes that this is somehow how it always was. The senate operated as a simple majority institution for the first 180 or so years it existed.

The way the electorate acts has changed and our political institutions need to keep up. We suffered a damaging change to the way the senate operates a number of years back and this helps restore it to its original state. The extremism comes TO Washington FROM us. Changing the rules of Washington does nothing to alter this fact, it just makes our government more able to operate given the people it's given.

I think people here are being very shortsighted because they do t like change or their political sports team feels threatened. This is a good thing from a governance perspective, the only downside is that the filibuster wasn't eliminated entirely.

I'm not the only one with concerns and I'm hardly one against change. You seem to think that we are at the point where things cannot get worse. I've learned to not say that.

Consider less partisan comments found elsewhere. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_11-22.html



But as I've already said this may ultimately work out, much like the Civil War. Perhaps non violent destruction is the solution.

 

[Moonbeam]

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?

If a conservative and a liberal must take the same bus and the conservative grabs the wheel and heads for a wall, we are left only to hope that the liberal does something and if he yanks the wheel in the direction of another wall we will have to hope that his brain is the kind that will be open to reason and he can be persuaded by logic to see the new situation. The science tells us we are not dealing with parallel cases, the conservative side in the present circumstances is more insane than liberals are. This is the inevitable conclusion, in my opinion, of the application of fact and reason. I do not feel qualified to judge but I must because it's instinctively obvious to me that folk like Matt1970 are not really sane. The scientific research on this backs me up. I am not a person of faith but I'm not such a liberal as to be able to deny my instincts particularly when they are supported by scientific evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

You don't think this swings both ways? When republicans are in power, the democrats now wont be able to stop that agenda.

Of course not. Having seen the catastrophe created by the Democrats changing the rule, the first thing Republicans will do if they get a majority is to change it back to the way it was. Surely you know that Republicans are the real moral party and not a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not the only one with concerns and I'm hardly one against change. You seem to think that we are at the point where things cannot get worse. I've learned to not say that.

Consider less partisan comments found elsewhere. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_11-22.html



But as I've already said this may ultimately work out, much like the Civil War. Perhaps non violent destruction is the solution.

I'm very aware that you aren't the only one with that opinion but I find the "moderate" opinions on this vacuous and unrealistic. It is easy to say people should have made a compromise so long as you can just talk about one without having to implement it.

That section really is David brooks at his best. Long winded, content free bloviating about high minded concepts without a single actual statement of what should be done and how to accomplish it.

 

[shira]

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

You're simply misinformed. Prior to 2012 (when the Republicans did their first debt-limit hostage taking), debt-limit negotiations have included ancillary legislation, but neither side has used the threat of NOT raising the debt limit as a bargaining chip. Both sides understood that the debt limit would be raised - that was never an issue. Ancillary legislation was along for the ride.

I defy you to find a headline for pre-2012 debt-limit negotiations that says that one side or the other was threatening to NOT raise the limit unless the other side granted concessions of some sort. If as you claim it's happened 17 times from 1974 through 2011, you should have no problem at all backing up your claim with such a headline.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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.

Hmmmmm subconscious admission that you're a paranoid schizophrenic that's ignoring what your doctor is recommending??????

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not the only one with concerns and I'm hardly one against change. You seem to think that we are at the point where things cannot get worse. I've learned to not say that.

Consider less partisan comments found elsewhere. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_11-22.html



But as I've already said this may ultimately work out, much like the Civil War. Perhaps non violent destruction is the solution.

I listened as carefully as I could. What did you hope I would hear? The point that stood out to me was the idea that the destruction of the country can be placed at the feet of the Supreme Court on their votes on campaign financing. To save the country without a Constitutional convention liberals will have to pick who goes on the Supreme Court.

 

[Matt1970]

You're simply misinformed. Prior to 2012 (when the Republicans did their first debt-limit hostage taking), debt-limit negotiations have included ancillary legislation, but neither side has used the threat of NOT raising the debt limit as a bargaining chip. Both sides understood that the debt limit would be raised - that was never an issue. Ancillary legislation was along for the ride.

I defy you to find a headline for pre-2012 debt-limit negotiations that says that one side or the other was threatening to NOT raise the limit unless the other side granted concessions of some sort. If as you claim it's happened 17 times from 1974 through 2011, you should have no problem at all backing up your claim with such a headline.

My bad, thought you were referring to the shutdown.

 

[Matt1970]

If a conservative and a liberal must take the same bus and the conservative grabs the wheel and heads for a wall, we are left only to hope that the liberal does something and if he yanks the wheel in the direction of another wall we will have to hope that his brain is the kind that will be open to reason and he can be persuaded by logic to see the new situation. The science tells us we are not dealing with parallel cases, the conservative side in the present circumstances is more insane than liberals are. This is the inevitable conclusion, in my opinion, of the application of fact and reason. I do not feel qualified to judge but I must because it's instinctively obvious to me that folk like Matt1970 are not really sane. The scientific research on this backs me up. I am not a person of faith but I'm not such a liberal as to be able to deny my instincts particularly when they are supported by scientific evidence.

I am not the one who keeps posting the same thing over and over and over again like it was the first time he posted it. You do realize people have longer memories than goldfish right?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I've always wondered how much of the psychobabble that Moonbeam posts in here has been said to him by a doctor but directed at his behaviors/beliefs and rather than deal with his problems head on he tries to pass them off of those he feels is the cause of his problem or makes his life more difficult.

 

[rudeguy]

I've always wondered how much of the psychobabble that Moonbeam posts in here has been said to him by a doctor but directed at his behaviors/beliefs and rather than deal with his problems head on he tries to pass them off of those he feels is the cause of his problem or makes his life more difficult.

Careful, Moony is part of the furniture here. We may not always agree, but he has paid his dues and is well respected.

 

[shady28]

I'm not the only one with concerns and I'm hardly one against change. You seem to think that we are at the point where things cannot get worse. I've learned to not say that.

Consider less partisan comments found elsewhere. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_11-22.html



But as I've already said this may ultimately work out, much like the Civil War. Perhaps non violent destruction is the solution.

The problem with ending filibusters goes back to having a 2-party system. Without filibuster, then there is no need for compromise. Compromise would still be enforced if there were more than 2 parties with real power as long as there was no supermajority.

That's where comparisons to other countries political systems falls apart. In those systems, the majority party still has to compromise and work with at least one other political group in order to obtain a majority significant enough to pass legislation. Many countries have more than 3 parties, they may have 6 or 7.

With our two party system devoid of filibuster, the majority in the Senate no longer needs to work with anyone. For all practical purposes, whoever is in the minority in the Senate has zero power to oppose the power of the reigning / majority party.

This makes the Senate a pointless institution from the standpoint of being a part of congress. As these parties have shown their ability to vote in lock-step on many issues, the Senate effectively represents one party.

Of course, the filibuster is only stopped for appointment confirmations.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I listened as carefully as I could. What did you hope I would hear? The point that stood out to me was the idea that the destruction of the country can be placed at the feet of the Supreme Court on their votes on campaign financing. To save the country without a Constitutional convention liberals will have to pick who goes on the Supreme Court.

We've talked about a change in our system and one common thought was a possibility of a Constitutional change. I'm not calling for an end to the nation but it has occurred to me that it takes a crisis to motivate many. If the result of this action is as I and some others believe, then we will have that catalyst. What I would have is the lessoning of control by the few. In other places a consensus, a necessary collaboration must exist to govern. Here the imperative is to win and rule. I have always been uncomfortable with that.

And so I believe that the potential for change exists but with perils.

But before I go further in a dialogue, I would ask a few things so that a clear understanding may be had.

In your posts you differentiate between Conservatives and Liberals, bit does this compromise the totality of possibilities? Let's use me since to many self professed liberals I am conservative, especially when my ideas conflict with theirs, yet I hope for more change than they, but not for its own sake. Then I have been a liberal, one who objected to war and imprisonment. In these cases both terms were often meant as pejoratives, but that matters not.

But we are talking about who would be appointed, or perhaps anointed for this task, so for the purpose of discussion, what am I? Where do I fit and more importantly others who do not identify with the conflation of party and ideology? Again, I ask to further discussion and thought. I only ask that you consider and answer honestly. My ego will not be harmed in any case. Are we what we and others call us? Do we want equality in participation of those we do not identify with or do we (and I've been using "we" in a larger collective sense), seek uniformity and exclusion?

What does your whole self say?

I bring this up because if the time for such change as we envision comes to pass that these will matter.

 

[woolfe9998]

Good. They should have abolished it in its entirety, and several years ago. We'd have a public option in the ACA right now but for the filibuster.

 

[cubby1223]

Good. They should have abolished it in its entirety, and several years ago. We'd have a public option in the ACA right now but for the filibuster.

Why even need that? 40 votes and legislation passes through the Senate.

Or, better yet, President Obama use an executive order to add the public option. Congress is just a bygone relic of history best forgotten.

 

[rudeguy]

Why even need that? 40 votes and legislation passes through the Senate.

Or, better yet, President Obama use an executive order to add the public option. Congress is just a bygone relic of history best forgotten.

Right. Why even staff the building anymore? Lets save money and send them and their staff home.

I trust Obama to do the right thing.

 

[cubby1223]

Good. They should have abolished it in its entirety, and several years ago. We'd have a public option in the ACA right now but for the filibuster.

Democrats in the Senate voted against the public option while the legislation was being crafted in committee.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt but I'd be willing to bet good money that this comes back to bite the Dems in the ass sooner rather than later.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good. They should have abolished it in its entirety, and several years ago. We'd have a public option in the ACA right now but for the filibuster.

And so Esau despised his birthright.

 

[Darwin333]

Good. They should have abolished it in its entirety, and several years ago. We'd have a public option in the ACA right now but for the filibuster.

OTOH the Republicans have been given the tools and precedent to roll back ACA, pass their own dumbfuck legislation and appoint their own uber-conservative judges/dept heads needing only a simple majority.

Both sides have dumbass ideas and I have always liked split rule because it prevents either sides really dumb shit from passing. This legislation might have made it easier for your side to do some things you like today but it will give the other side the power to do things that you absolutely despise in the future. Obviously its way to early to call but from what I have read so far is that there is a very good chance that the Senate rule will swap.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't really have a dog in this hunt but I'd be willing to bet good money that this comes back to bite the Dems in the ass sooner rather than later.

Bite them in the ass how? Be specific.

If the Republicans retain their majority in the House and gain a majority in the Senate by 2016 do you think the average Republican will be more or less conservative than they are now? It seems obvious the answer is more.

With that in mind do you HONESTLY think that the Republicans would respect the filibuster and not repeal the ACA with a simple majority? Honestly? If so, that's awfully naive.

Do you honestly think the even more conservative Senate than the one in 2005 that came within a hair of eliminating the judicial filibuster over a small handful of nominees wouldn't eliminate it in 2016 if they control the presidency? If so again I find that to be awfully naive.

So then the question becomes, how would this bite the Democrats in the ass? Republicans already refused to cooperate on significant legislation, so that's out. Republicans were already at basically maximum obstruction in the Senate at all times anyway, so that's out.

Counterfactuals will of course be impossible, but all I see this doing is making it slightly easier for Republicans to do what they were going to do anyway as soon as they had the chance. I mean seriously.