Nice to have a few conversations going on that are more policy and less politics, so far without much sniping.

Regarding DC statehood, I get that DC is unique in the composition of its residents and their relation to the federal government. Separate from any legal or constitutional arguments, which I haven't looked at or thought about at all, I think that is actually an argument in favor of giving them separate representation from Maryland and Virginia. It might even make more sense to fold in parts of the DC suburbs in Virginia and Maryland into the new state. Other than historical reasons, giving DC statehood and independent representation in Congress makes more sense to me then North Dakota and South Dakota having separate representation. Relatedly, I think US territories like Guam, USVI, America Samoa, etc. should be given the option of joining a state (either DC or Hawaii for the pacific ocean territories; either Florida, DC, or Puerto Rico if it becomes a state for USVI).

(07-06-2020 07:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think it needs reforming as it is overused as a threat but it is pretty rare senators have to actually filibuster. I'd be more OK with it if filibustering senators actually had to sit there and talk for hours (and stay germane). Also, I don't think the filibuster should exist for judicial appointments but I think there should be a 60-vote threshold for "advice and consent" and I don't think the filibuster should exist for cabinet appointments (not sure about the 60-vote threshold for those).

I think it is a wonderful system as a moderation device. In that respect the idea of 60 votes to advance cloture is very good thing. In short, I am all aboard with it as a political tool, even without the requirement of speaking.
...
And I actually initially misinterpreted your ending statement above I think. Is this what you are in favor of:

for judicial appointments a cloture vote should be majority vote, final vote should be 60;

for cabinet appointments a cloture should be majority and you are unsure about a tally for a final vote (between majority and 60).

Did I get that correctly? If so, I would disagree not in the concept but implementation.

I would reserve the judicial 60 vote threshold for Supreme Court. I think we have seen historically how the 60 votes can be used not in good faith, but as simply dilatory tactics -- that is not necessarily good for the effective administration of justice which requires 'front line troops' on a continual basis.

I have a whole plan that I partially described in the Supreme Court thread a while back about reforming the judiciary by reforming the nomination and confirmation process. I think all judicial nominees should get an up-or-down vote (so yes, majority vote for cloture). I don't want this thread to become too Supreme Court focused, but I'll just say that I think the suggestion works better for district and circuit court nominees if other reforms are made so that dilatory tactics do not really work. I think the 60-vote requirement for judicial nominees make sense since they are in a separate branch of government and because they serve extremely long terms (currently life). Both those factors favor requiring more consensus than for executive branch nominations.

I also favor getting rid of the filibuster for executive branch appointments because I think the President should be able to at least get up-or-down votes on the people the President wants to surround himself/herself with. I do think there are some good arguments for requiring more than a majority vote however, since executive branch appointees serve at the pleasure of the President but ultimately should still be serving the american people. That said, I don't really like the idea of the Senate rejecting executive branch nominees for political purposes (as opposed to lack of proper experience or certain personal issues).