carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 This was probably inevitable given the current state of affairs. The times they are a changin'. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I have a feeling that in a little over 11 months, Democrats are REALLY going to regret this. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I have a feeling that in a little over 11 months, Democrats are REALLY going to regret this. Congress doesn't typically plan that far ahead. Link to comment
AgMarauder04 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Didn't the Democrats flip out about this possibility in 2005? Hell, OBAMA spoke against it! Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 I have a feeling that in a little over 11 months, Democrats are REALLY going to regret this. Why's that? Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 Didn't the Democrats flip out about this possibility in 2005? Yep . . . and it was the Republicans threatening the rules change (even though the obstructionism was nowhere near present levels). At the time, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the No. 2 GOP leader and helped push the effort to eliminate filibusters on the George W. Bush White House’s judicial selections. Eight years later, McConnell, now the minority leader, has grown publicly furious over Reid’s threats to use the same maneuver. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1967 through 2012, majority leaders had to file motions to try to break a filibuster of a judicial nominee 67 times — and 31 of those, more than 46 percent — occurred in the last five years of an Obama White House and Democratic majority. Emphasis added. Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I have a feeling that in a little over 11 months, Democrats are REALLY going to regret this. Why's that? You know Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 You know Not really? You're probably thinking that the GOP will retake the Senate (could happen) . . . what I'm wondering is how you think that this will change anything? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Both parties have used this and both cry and whine and act like little spoiled children when they other party is doing it. THEN, when they lose power, they turn around and act like it is a noble way of being the minority. No rule changes will be made because the party in power deep down understands they will want to use this tactic at some point. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 No rule changes will be made because the party in power deep down understands they will want to use this tactic at some point. It's already done . . . Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 You know Not really? You're probably thinking that the GOP will retake the Senate (could happen) . . . what I'm wondering is how you think that this will change anything? Republicans will have the simple majority and will be able to do the same thing. Democrats must know this so I assume that they have some people in mind right now that they REALLY want to get through before 2014. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 Republicans will have the simple majority and will be able to do the same thing. Democrats must know this so I assume that they have some people in mind right now that they REALLY want to get through before 2014. You mean the GOP will dispose of the filibuster entirely (if they win the senate)? That'd be a bit more drastic than ending filibusters of nominees but I can't say that I'd be too disappointed. Elections should have consequences. I think that the most pressing issue is the DC circuit . . . but I think that there are more than 150 other federal judicial vacancies. Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Republicans will have the simple majority and will be able to do the same thing. Democrats must know this so I assume that they have some people in mind right now that they REALLY want to get through before 2014. You mean the GOP will dispose of the filibuster entirely (if they win the senate)? That'd be a bit more drastic than ending filibusters of nominees but I can't say that I'd be too disappointed. Elections should have consequences. I think that the most pressing issue is the DC circuit . . . but I think that there are more than 150 other federal judicial vacancies. I would like to think that they wouldn't go THAT far, but I guess, with this current, 225 year-old legislation, nothing is sacred. I was at a conference this weekend where the DC circuit was discussed. The constant challenging of nominees is one of the reasons for the huge number of vacancies, but that number would be huge, regardless. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 I was at a conference this weekend where the DC circuit was discussed. The constant challenging of nominees is one of the reasons for the huge number of vacancies, but that number would be huge, regardless. It would be. Obama has been inexplicably slow in putting forward nominees. I'm not sure if it's a ridiculously stringent vetting process or what . . . but it's been a trickle. Link to comment
Recommended Posts