Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s...story.html

Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

(11-21-2013 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

And where have YOU been for the last 5 years? It's been steadily moving forward... In a rapid downhill manner, but still just like you asked.

FORWARD

(11-21-2013 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

Payback is gonna suck, you know that, right?

Oh, and we're not taking about Obamacare any more. It worked.

Just as when the Republicans have done this in the past, it is complete BS. Both parties need to work to find someone in the middle that is acceptable to all.

(11-21-2013 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

Payback is gonna suck, you know that, right?

It's a more fair system for both sides. This is what the founding fathers intended.

(11-21-2013 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

Payback is gonna suck, you know that, right?

It's a more fair system for both sides. This is what the founding fathers intended.

It just guaranteed they will lose the Senate. The Democrats are going to hate that rule when it comes time to block one of their nominations.

(11-21-2013 04:10 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

Payback is gonna suck, you know that, right?

It's a more fair system for both sides. This is what the founding fathers intended.

It just guaranteed they will lose the Senate. The Democrats are going to hate that rule when it comes time to block one of their nominations.

Remember the Patriot Act? Republicans loved it when Bush was in office and they hate it now.

It's par for the course.

Presidents shouldn't have to go through years of filibuster to get their people in though. It's about making government work.

I have mixed feelings about this. There are legitimate, non-partisan reasons for believing that lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary should require a simple "50% + 1" majority in the Senate, and also for believing that a filibuster-proof super-majority should be required. I think, when it's all said and done, I'm more inclined to support the filibuster-proof standard. Obviously, when you've got a majority that's less than 60/40, that will be highly frustrating. But given the extreme power that the federal judiciary and the federal government overall now claims over our daily lives, I think it's justifiable to require a higher level of support in order to be confirmed.

But Reid and the Senate Democrats obviously see it differently, and that's their prerogative.

I'll just say this: since Democrats are so eager to switch to a system where 51-50 is enough to make things happen in the Senate, then they better be ready to deal with it when they are the ones with "50" and the Republicans have the "51". They won't like it, but because of today's action, they will be stuck with it.

(11-21-2013 04:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:10 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

Payback is gonna suck, you know that, right?

It's a more fair system for both sides. This is what the founding fathers intended.

It just guaranteed they will lose the Senate. The Democrats are going to hate that rule when it comes time to block one of their nominations.

Remember the Patriot Act? Republicans loved it when Bush was in office and they hate it now.

It's par for the course.

Presidents shouldn't have to go through years of filibuster to get their people in though. It's about making government work.

It's been misused and abused to spy on every U/S citizen. Of course we hate it. You should too.

(11-21-2013 04:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:10 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Awesome.

It's about time. Maybe now government can move forward.

Payback is gonna suck, you know that, right?

It's a more fair system for both sides. This is what the founding fathers intended.

It just guaranteed they will lose the Senate. The Democrats are going to hate that rule when it comes time to block one of their nominations.

Remember the Patriot Act? Republicans loved it when Bush was in office and they hate it now.

It's par for the course.

Presidents shouldn't have to go through years of filibuster to get their people in though. It's about making government work.

Sadly for your party, 2014 will not be about the Patriot Act. Enjoy.

(11-21-2013 04:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have mixed feelings about this. There are legitimate, non-partisan reasons for believing that lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary should require a simple "50% + 1" majority in the Senate, and also for believing that a filibuster-proof super-majority should be required. I think, when it's all said and done, I'm more inclined to support the filibuster-proof standard. Obviously, when you've got a majority that's less than 60/40, that will be highly frustrating. But given the extreme power that the federal judiciary and the federal government overall now claims over our daily lives, I think it's justifiable to require a higher level of support in order to be confirmed.

But Reid and the Senate Democrats obviously see it differently, and that's their prerogative.

I'll just say this: since Democrats are so eager to switch to a system where 51-50 is enough to make things happen in the Senate, then they better be ready to deal with it when they are the ones with "50" and the Republicans have the "51". They won't like it, but because of today's action, they will be stuck with it.

Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

(11-21-2013 03:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Just as when the Republicans have done this in the past, it is complete BS. Both parties need to work to find someone in the middle that is acceptable to all.

The Republicans just talked about doing this but they could/would not pull the trigger. Probably why they are usually a minority. They just talk about it. The Democrats want the power and aren't afraid to use it when they have it.

I love it. The Dems are desperate and this move today assures that when the Republicans take over the Senate and keep the House, the Dems can cry all they want when the Repubicans run rough shod over them. The Dems can't blame anyone but themselves now. I do love it so.

(11-21-2013 04:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have mixed feelings about this. There are legitimate, non-partisan reasons for believing that lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary should require a simple "50% + 1" majority in the Senate, and also for believing that a filibuster-proof super-majority should be required. I think, when it's all said and done, I'm more inclined to support the filibuster-proof standard. Obviously, when you've got a majority that's less than 60/40, that will be highly frustrating. But given the extreme power that the federal judiciary and the federal government overall now claims over our daily lives, I think it's justifiable to require a higher level of support in order to be confirmed.

But Reid and the Senate Democrats obviously see it differently, and that's their prerogative.

I'll just say this: since Democrats are so eager to switch to a system where 51-50 is enough to make things happen in the Senate, then they better be ready to deal with it when they are the ones with "50" and the Republicans have the "51". They won't like it, but because of today's action, they will be stuck with it.

Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

Without it the minority party just might as well go home.

(11-21-2013 04:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

The filibuster has been a part of the Senate rules going back to the 1800s. In fact, it used to be that a 2/3 majority was needed to break a filibuster, and it was changed to a 3/5 majority only in -- IIRC -- 1975.

In 1963/1964, the filibuster was the main reason why the Civil Rights Act was so slow to work its way through the Senate. But when it finally did, it was enacted by a vote of 73-27: a truly overwhelming and bipartisan vote, which helped the law to gain acceptance among some people who were unsure as to its wisdom. It's interesting to note that in the 1960s, there was very little support for changing the filibuster rules, because even the liberals of that era knew they wanted to use that rule themselves as political circumstances required. As I mentioned, it was eventually changed from 2/3 to 3/5, but I think the 3/5 rule has been beneficial to the country.

(11-21-2013 04:27 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  The Republicans just talked about doing this but they could/would not pull the trigger. Probably why they are usually a minority. They just talk about it. The Democrats want the power and aren't afraid to use it when they have it.

Things aren't quite that simple, of course, but there is a lot of truth in that.

(11-21-2013 04:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

The filibuster has been a part of the Senate rules going back to the 1800s. In fact, it used to be that a 2/3 majority was needed to break a filibuster, and it was changed to a 3/5 majority only in -- IIRC -- 1975.

In 1963/1964, the filibuster was the main reason why the Civil Rights Act was so slow to work its way through the Senate. But when it finally did, it was enacted by a vote of 73-27: a truly overwhelming and bipartisan vote, which helped the law to gain acceptance among some people who were unsure as to its wisdom. It's interesting to note that in the 1960s, there was very little support for changing the filibuster rules, because even the liberals of that era knew they wanted to use that rule themselves as political circumstances required. As I mentioned, it was eventually changed from 2/3 to 3/5, but I think the 3/5 rule has been beneficial to the country.

Well i've always known that it was required for really important stuff like changing the Constitution but I thought they rarely used it for meaningless stuff like Presidential appointments.

(11-21-2013 04:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well i've always known that it was required for really important stuff like changing the Constitution but I thought they rarely used it for meaningless stuff like Presidential appointments.

Are you talking about appointments to the federal bench?

In the early days of the US Supreme Court (1790--1810) there were several justices who resigned from the Court in order to take the same position on the Supreme Court of their home-state. They did this because they understood that under the Constitution, ultimate sovereignty rested with the "free and independent States" and not with the Federal government in DC.

Now that the constitutional order has been destroyed and the Federal government tells everybody else what to do, we obviously don't see federal judges resigning their posts to become a state-court judge anymore. And we see political parties trying to prevent federal judgeship vacancies from being filled by the opposing political party, if they can. Those positions come with lifetime tenure and are anything but "meaningless".