Filibuster Reform

[lo country]

I think this decision will only worsen partisan politics. It sure won't make things better. Remember the immigration reform, debt ceiling and budget issues coming up? Good luck anyone breaking rank. Granted this is law, but not appointments.

 

Bush's nominations were generally completed in 211 days, Obama's in 228. Way to long for both. Perhaps is both parties would nominate qualified persons' with the request quals it might lessen this crap.

 

Now, Hardin wants to make a move to do this for legislation and not just appointments. Talk about lessening the checks and balances. All good until your party is in the minority. This issue, IMO, is something that should alarm all Americans. The backlash will only make an already dysfunctional govt worse.

 

You are kidding yourselves thinking this will improve the effectiveness of DC, the quality of the crap coming out of there or make the parties work together.

 

Regarding Dems regretting this is based on the theory that Americans will vote Republican in the 2014 election to "punish" Dems for the over reach. Several things I know. If there is back lash, the Republicans are too stupid to capitalize on it and American voters are generally apathetic so long as it doesn't effect them.

 

It won't hurt the Dems at all IMO.

 

Politics. Plain and simple and a continuation of the crap that has gotten us this messed up in the first place.

[Junior]

I read somewhere that 23 district court nominations have been filibustered in US history. 20 of them were appointed by Obama. The level of obstruction is at a historic level. I have no problem with this.

[JJ Husker]

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.

 

FIFY

[lo country]

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.

 

FIFY

This.

[carlfense]

I think this decision will only worsen partisan politics. It sure won't make things better. Remember the immigration reform, debt ceiling and budget issues coming up? Good luck anyone breaking rank. Granted this is law, but not appointments.

Worse? Heh.

 

You can't go into negative numbers territory. It won't make things better regarding legislation but it really can't make it any worse. None of those things were going to happen anyways . . . especially immigration reform.

[strigori]

I think this decision will only worsen partisan politics. It sure won't make things better. Remember the immigration reform, debt ceiling and budget issues coming up? Good luck anyone breaking rank. Granted this is law, but not appointments.

 

Bush's nominations were generally completed in 211 days, Obama's in 228. Way to long for both. Perhaps is both parties would nominate qualified persons' with the request quals it might lessen this crap.

 

Now, Hardin wants to make a move to do this for legislation and not just appointments. Talk about lessening the checks and balances. All good until your party is in the minority. This issue, IMO, is something that should alarm all Americans. The backlash will only make an already dysfunctional govt worse.

 

You are kidding yourselves thinking this will improve the effectiveness of DC, the quality of the crap coming out of there or make the parties work together.

 

Regarding Dems regretting this is based on the theory that Americans will vote Republican in the 2014 election to "punish" Dems for the over reach. Several things I know. If there is back lash, the Republicans are too stupid to capitalize on it and American voters are generally apathetic so long as it doesn't effect them.

 

It won't hurt the Dems at all IMO.

 

Politics. Plain and simple and a continuation of the crap that has gotten us this messed up in the first place.

This has nothing to do with checks and balances. The House, Senate, President and Supreme Court are the system of checks and balances, not a BS procedural item that is only used to block votes from happening.

 

I doubt there is any backlash over this. The people who are really upset about it are the same people who get upset about everything.

 

It can't possibly make things any worse. You had Mitch McConnel making statements that the #1 priority was to make Obama a 1 term President. I'm sure there are some members of the GOP that would make a point to disagree with Obama on a comment about the weather on a given day. Actually running the gov is not something they want to do.

 

The fact of the matter is that due to the House making complete obstruction their #1 goal, all issues like immigration reform, or anything else, is DOA right now. So the Senate might as well get the large numbers of judge positions filled with qualified people.

[rawhide]

I think this decision will only worsen partisan politics. It sure won't make things better. Remember the immigration reform, debt ceiling and budget issues coming up? Good luck anyone breaking rank. Granted this is law, but not appointments.

 

Bush's nominations were generally completed in 211 days, Obama's in 228. Way to long for both. Perhaps is both parties would nominate qualified persons' with the request quals it might lessen this crap.

 

Now, Hardin wants to make a move to do this for legislation and not just appointments. Talk about lessening the checks and balances. All good until your party is in the minority. This issue, IMO, is something that should alarm all Americans. The backlash will only make an already dysfunctional govt worse.

 

You are kidding yourselves thinking this will improve the effectiveness of DC, the quality of the crap coming out of there or make the parties work together.

 

Regarding Dems regretting this is based on the theory that Americans will vote Republican in the 2014 election to "punish" Dems for the over reach. Several things I know. If there is back lash, the Republicans are too stupid to capitalize on it and American voters are generally apathetic so long as it doesn't effect them.

 

It won't hurt the Dems at all IMO.

 

Politics. Plain and simple and a continuation of the crap that has gotten us this messed up in the first place.

This has nothing to do with checks and balances. The House, Senate, President and Supreme Court are the system of checks and balances, not a BS procedural item that is only used to block votes from happening.

 

I doubt there is any backlash over this. The people who are really upset about it are the same people who get upset about everything.

 

It can't possibly make things any worse. You had Mitch McConnel making statements that the #1 priority was to make Obama a 1 term President. I'm sure there are some members of the GOP that would make a point to disagree with Obama on a comment about the weather on a given day. Actually running the gov is not something they want to do.

 

The fact of the matter is that due to the House making complete obstruction their #1 goal, all issues like immigration reform, or anything else, is DOA right now. So the Senate might as well get the large numbers of judge positions filled with qualified ideologically compatible people.

 

FIFY

[Husker_x]

I think this decision will only worsen partisan politics. It sure won't make things better. Remember the immigration reform, debt ceiling and budget issues coming up? Good luck anyone breaking rank. Granted this is law, but not appointments.

 

Bush's nominations were generally completed in 211 days, Obama's in 228. Way to long for both. Perhaps is both parties would nominate qualified persons' with the request quals it might lessen this crap.

 

Now, Hardin wants to make a move to do this for legislation and not just appointments. Talk about lessening the checks and balances. All good until your party is in the minority. This issue, IMO, is something that should alarm all Americans. The backlash will only make an already dysfunctional govt worse.

 

You are kidding yourselves thinking this will improve the effectiveness of DC, the quality of the crap coming out of there or make the parties work together.

 

Regarding Dems regretting this is based on the theory that Americans will vote Republican in the 2014 election to "punish" Dems for the over reach. Several things I know. If there is back lash, the Republicans are too stupid to capitalize on it and American voters are generally apathetic so long as it doesn't effect them.

 

It won't hurt the Dems at all IMO.

 

Politics. Plain and simple and a continuation of the crap that has gotten us this messed up in the first place.

This has nothing to do with checks and balances. The House, Senate, President and Supreme Court are the system of checks and balances, not a BS procedural item that is only used to block votes from happening.

 

I doubt there is any backlash over this. The people who are really upset about it are the same people who get upset about everything.

 

It can't possibly make things any worse. You had Mitch McConnel making statements that the #1 priority was to make Obama a 1 term President. I'm sure there are some members of the GOP that would make a point to disagree with Obama on a comment about the weather on a given day. Actually running the gov is not something they want to do.

 

The fact of the matter is that due to the House making complete obstruction their #1 goal, all issues like immigration reform, or anything else, is DOA right now. So the Senate might as well get the large numbers of judge positions filled with qualified people.

 

I agree. Characterizing this move as a raw power grab is totally disingenuous. The only reason we're even having this conversation is Republicans have quite literally made this nation ungovernable. If we can't even put asses in open court seats, much less overhaul our exercise-in-futility immigration system, what do we pay these people for? Someone has to get the ship moving again.

[Ric Flair]

It's absolutely a raw power grab. The short-term benefit for the Democrats is that they can force their nominees through to confirmation and pack the courts with liberals. The downside for them is that they won't always control the Senate and the White House. Once Republicans are in power, they can do the same thing. And now that the precedent has been set, where the majority can simply change the rules on a whim, the Republicans will likely use it to change the rules for Supreme Court nominees and legislation. So the same Democrats chuckling with glee over Reid's use of the nuclear option are unable to see a future where the Republicans stack the US Supreme Court and the rest of the federal courts with Republican judges.

 

There are some real problems with this. First, both parties are now emboldened to nominate more extreme judges than they would have been able to get confirmed previously. As a result, we can expect a much more polarized and extreme judiciary. I'm an attorney and can tell you that this is a very very bad thing. Next, we can expect the Senate to get even less done than it did previously. Reid not only overturned a couple hundred years of Senate tradition, but did so in a pretty nasty way. So the Republicans are plenty upset and will do what they can to obstruct now. That means deals on the budget, immigration, etc. are less likely now. There's just no trust between the parties now. And finally, the reason for the Senate's rules regarding cloture, the filibuster, etc. were to protect the rights of the minority. Now that the precedent has been set where the majority can simply change those rules any time they like, the minority effectively has no rights.

[carlfense]

It's absolutely a raw power grab. The short-term benefit for the Democrats is that they can force their nominees through to confirmation and pack the courts with liberals. The downside for them is that they won't always control the Senate and the White House. Once Republicans are in power, they can do the same thing.

If this is such an undemocratic, unprecedented, outrageous move . . . wouldn't the Republicans change things back to the way they were? Or is the outrage fake?

 

And now that the precedent has been set, where the majority can simply change the rules on a whim, the Republicans will likely use it to change the rules for Supreme Court nominees and legislation. So the same Democrats chuckling with glee over Reid's use of the nuclear option are unable to see a future where the Republicans stack the US Supreme Court and the rest of the federal courts with Republican judges.

You seem to think that a president "packing" or "stacking" the courts with judges that share their worldview is unusual. Why is that?

 

Further, do you know how many Supreme Court nominees have actually been filibustered?

 

 

There are some real problems with this. First, both parties are now emboldened to nominate more extreme judges than they would have been able to get confirmed previously. As a result, we can expect a much more polarized and extreme judiciary. I'm an attorney and can tell you that this is a very very bad thing. Next, we can expect the Senate to get even less done than it did previously. Reid not only overturned a couple hundred years of Senate tradition, but did so in a pretty nasty way. So the Republicans are plenty upset and will do what they can to obstruct now. That means deals on the budget, immigration, etc. are less likely now. There's just no trust between the parties now. And finally, the reason for the Senate's rules regarding cloture, the filibuster, etc. were to protect the rights of the minority. Now that the precedent has been set where the majority can simply change those rules any time they like, the minority effectively has no rights.

1. We'll get a more polarized and extreme judiciary only if the president chooses to nominate more extreme judges and a majority of the senate chooses to confirm those nominees. It's not a fait accompli. If it happens, it will be a conscious choice.

 

2. It's not really possible for the Senate to get less done than they did previously. Now they'll just try to blame their chosen inaction on something (or someone) other than themselves.

[sd'sker]

It's absolutely a raw power grab.

only in america could an action that is more democratic be considered a power grab. if you are really concerned about power grabs, you should be downright irate with gerrymandering and neb. changing the law so each district no longer has its own electoral votes.

[Ric Flair]

If this is such an undemocratic, unprecedented, outrageous move . . . wouldn't the Republicans change things back to the way they were? Or is the outrage fake?

 

The outrage is real. But once the liberals have used the move to pack the courts full of liberals, it would be asinine for Republicans, upon taking power, not to return the favor and do the same with conservatives. Otherwise there will be differnet standards for the two parties, as once the Democrats take charge again, they can simply change the rules back and continue with their court-packing.

 

You seem to think that a president "packing" or "stacking" the courts with judges that share their worldview is unusual. Why is that?

 

It's not unusual. But the fact that there was a 60 vote threshold that had to be attained meant that most judicial nominations had to attract at least a few votes from the minority party. That's a healthy check on judges who are too extreme being given lifetime appointments.

 

1. We'll get a more polarized and extreme judiciary only if the president chooses to nominate more extreme judges and a majority of the senate chooses to confirm those nominees. It's not a fait accompli. If it happens, it will be a conscious choice.

 

2. It's not really possible for the Senate to get less done than they did previously. Now they'll just try to blame their chosen inaction on something (or someone) other than themselves.

 

He will and they will. Most judicial nominations are confirmed without a fight. It's the judges who are too extreme that cause a battle. Most Presidents avoid nominating extremists for fear of such a battle. The fact that Obama's nominees can now be confirmed on a straight-party line vote essentially eliminates the prospect of a battle. So he's free to choose as liberal of judges as he wants to. And there's no way the Democrats in the Senate will fight him on that.

 

The Senate will get far less done. I'll guarantee that. The bad blood over this will linger.

[Ric Flair]

It's absolutely a raw power grab.

only in america could an action that is more democratic be considered a power grab. if you are really concerned about power grabs, you should be downright irate with gerrymandering and neb. changing the law so each district no longer has its own electoral votes.

 

Democracy involves more than mere mob rule. One of its fundamental elements is the protections it affords for minority rights. If a simple majority can do whatever they want whenever they want and change the rules whenever they please, then the minority has no rights.

[carlfense]

The outrage is real. But once the liberals have used the move to pack the courts full of liberals, it would be asinine for Republicans, upon taking power, not to return the favor and do the same with conservatives. Otherwise there will be differnet standards for the two parties, as once the Democrats take charge again, they can simply change the rules back and continue with their court-packing.

So it's so outrageous and un-democratic that it's going to be embraced by the party decrying it? Hmmmm.

 

It's not unusual. But the fact that there was a 60 vote threshold that had to be attained meant that most judicial nominations had to attract at least a few votes from the minority party. That's a healthy check on judges who are too extreme being given lifetime appointments.

That'd be a nice point but it's not true. Instead, the minority party has recently chosen to filibuster virtually all nominees . . . regardless of ideological disposition. See the fake "court packing" storyline about the DC circuit for one example.

 

He will and they will. Most judicial nominations are confirmed without a fight. It's the judges who are too extreme that cause a battle. Most Presidents avoid nominating extremists for fear of such a battle. The fact that Obama's nominees can now be confirmed on a straight-party line vote essentially eliminates the prospect of a battle. So he's free to choose as liberal of judges as he wants to. And there's no way the Democrats in the Senate will fight him on that.

We'll see.

 

The Senate will get far less done. I'll guarantee that. The bad blood over this will linger.

OK, then.

[carlfense]

Democracy involves more than mere mob rule. One of its fundamental elements is the protections it affords for minority rights. If a simple majority can do whatever they want whenever they want and change the rules whenever they please, then the minority has no rights.

Seems a bit hyperbolic.