Filibuster Reform

[Creighton Duke]

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.

The question was posed (by me, naturally) asking if presidents may actually be concerned with the spirit of the concept of separation of powers....it got a good lulz

[carlfense]

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.

The question was posed (by me, naturally) asking if presidents may actually be concerned with the spirit of the concept of separation of powers....it got a good lulz

Huh? What does separation of powers have to do with the president nominating judges as provided for in the constitution?

[Creighton Duke]

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.

The question was posed (by me, naturally) asking if presidents may actually be concerned with the spirit of the concept of separation of powers....it got a good lulz

Huh? What does separation of powers have to do with the president nominating judges as provided for in the constitution?

That was the joke, that presidents would either NOT nominate judges or would nominate judges with different political ideologies.

[knapplc]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought Creighton said the Dems would be regretting this because they won't always control the House and this legislation which seems like a good idea today could come back to bite them in the ass when they want to be the ones obstructing.

[Creighton Duke]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought Creighton said the Dems would be regretting this because they won't always control the House and this legislation which seems like a good idea today could come back to bite them in the ass when they want to be the ones obstructing.

Yep, that was pretty much it, although I was referring to the Senate, specifically.

[carlfense]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought Creighton said the Dems would be regretting this because they won't always control the House and this legislation which seems like a good idea today could come back to bite them in the ass when they want to be the ones obstructing.

My confusion was based on this quote: ". . . in a little over 11 months, Democrats are REALLY going to regret this"

 

This only applies to presidential nominees appointments . . . so unless something truly crazy happens (i.e. we somehow have a Republican president after this mid-term) I can't see why the Democrats would REALLY regret this in a little over 11 months.

[carlfense]

[Creighton Duke]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought Creighton said the Dems would be regretting this because they won't always control the House and this legislation which seems like a good idea today could come back to bite them in the ass when they want to be the ones obstructing.

My confusion was based on this quote: ". . . in a little over 11 months, Democrats are REALLY going to regret this"

 

This only applies to presidential appointments . . . so unless something truly crazy happens (i.e. we somehow have a Republican president after this mid-term) I can't see why the Democrats would REALLY regret this in a little over 11 months.

I'm still not understanding why this isn't significant in your interpretation. Please set me straight if I am interpreting this wrong, but Obama would still be making the nomination and the Republicans, in theory, would have the majority, but possibly not enough for the 60-plus that is normally required to break a filibuster. Because of this, even with their simple majority, they could break the filibuster.

[carlfense]

I'm still not understanding why this isn't significant in your interpretation. Please set me straight if I am interpreting this wrong, but Obama would still be making the nomination and the Republicans, in theory, would have the majority, but possibly not enough for the 60-plus that is normally required to break a filibuster. Because of this, even with their simple majority, they could break the filibuster.

Perhaps an example would help:

 

(Alternate universe where the filibuster remains as it did prior to today.) It's January, 2016. The new Senate Majority Leader is Ted Cruz (heh). Obama nominates Judge X to fill a judicial vacancy. Cruz brings Obama's nominee up for a vote and (a) Judge X is defeated in a majority vote, or (b) Judge X's nomination is (for some reason) defeated in a filibuster by the Democrats.

 

Put another way, why do you think that the Democrats would be filibustering a Democratic president's nominees?

 

I truly don't understand what you're getting at. If you were saying that Democrats might regret this in 2016 it would make a lot more sense.

[Creighton Duke]

I'm still not understanding why this isn't significant in your interpretation. Please set me straight if I am interpreting this wrong, but Obama would still be making the nomination and the Republicans, in theory, would have the majority, but possibly not enough for the 60-plus that is normally required to break a filibuster. Because of this, even with their simple majority, they could break the filibuster.

Perhaps an example would help:

 

(Alternate universe where the filibuster remains as it did prior to today.) It's January, 2016. The new Senate Majority Leader is Ted Cruz (heh). Obama nominates Judge X to fill a judicial vacancy. Cruz brings Obama's nominee up for a vote and (a) Judge X's is defeated in a majority vote, or (b) Judge X's nomination is (for some reason) defeated in a filibuster by the Democrats.

 

Put another way, why do you think that the Democrats would be filibustering a Democratic president's nominees?

 

I truly don't understand what you're getting at. If you were saying that Democrats might regret this in 2016 it would make a lot more sense.

Good point. I didn't think about the fact that Democrats OBVIOUSLY wouldn't be doing that. Let's pretend I said 2 years and 11 months...

[carlfense]

Let's pretend I said 2 years and 11 months...

I'm in.

[rawhide]

And in a galaxy far far away:

 

[carlfense]

And in a galaxy far far away:

 

Fortunately, at least on this issue, the hypocritical flip flopping by both sides is at an end. Now the Dems were always for reforming the filibuster and the Reps were always against it.

 

 

Edit: And we've always been at war with Eastasia.

[strigori]

Let's pretend I said 2 years and 11 months...

I'm in.

Does that mean we start by pretending the GOP becomes less crazy in that time frame?

[carlfense]

Does that mean we start by pretending the GOP becomes less crazy in that time frame?

I don't see that happening for awhile. I thought that maybe the 2012 election was going to be that moment . . . but instead it become another Odumba stole the election/Obozo won despite Obamacare/IRS/BENGHAZI.

 

On a national level, I think that they're going to spend some more time in the crazy-wilderness. The gerrymandering was awfully effective . . . but it's going to end up hurting them in presidential elections.