Filibuster Reform

[Ric Flair]

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

 

They wo uld be foolish once it's used against them not to use it in response. Choosing not to would amount to unilateral disarmament.

 

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.

 

Bush tried to appoint judges to that court as well and was blocked by a Democratic Senate. Despite the fact that the DC Circuit is underworked and doesn't need more judges, Obama now wants to force through extremists to fill all three openings. Now he can.

 

We'll see.

 

And you won't have to wait long. Read the profiles of the judges Obama has nominated.

 

OK, then.

 

You need to break out of your MSNBC bubble and stop getting all your news spoonfed to you by the likes of Martin Bashir, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

[sd'sker]

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.

requiring a super-majority is not a right for anyone.

[Ric Flair]

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.

requiring a super-majority is not a right for anyone.

 

Of course not. It's a protection that's put in place to protect the rights of the minority.

 

 

 

“Do I want to amend the rules? I want to amend these rules with all my heart. I want to embody a principle that a president, regardless of party, should be able to get a vote on his or her nominees to executive positions and to district and circuit courts. I believe in that. I think most senators believe in that. We need to change the rules.

 

But to change it in the way we changed it today means there are no rules except as the majority wants them. It is a very major shift in the very nature of this institution if the majority can do whatever it wants by changing the rules whenever it wants, with a method that has not been used before in this body, to change the very rules of this body.”

 

Carl Levin (D-Michigan)

[carlfense]

They wo uld be foolish once it's used against them not to use it in response. Choosing not to would amount to unilateral disarmament.

If the general thrust of the argument is "this is completely outrageous! So outrageous, in fact, that we're going to do it too!" well . . . I'm unmoved.

 

Bush tried to appoint judges to that court as well and was blocked by a Democratic Senate.

Then what happened? It seems that you're choosing to omit a key fact.

 

Despite the fact that the DC Circuit is underworked and doesn't need more judges, Obama now wants to force through extremists to fill all three openings. Now he can.

What are you basing this on? (Besides it being an oft-repeated talking point. Let's try to move beyond that.)

 

And you won't have to wait long. Read the profiles of the judges Obama has nominated.

Are you referring to the judges that Obama has already nominated? If so, what, specifically are you referring to? Please show the extremism that you're claiming.

 

You need to break out of your MSNBC bubble and stop getting all your news spoonfed to you by the likes of Martin Bashir, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

Bold talk for someone who is choosing to repeat (and accept, apparently) the claim that the DC circuit is "underworked and doesn't need more judges."

[carlfense]

Of course not. It's a protection that's put in place to protect the rights of the minority.

"Put in place"?! You serious, Clark?

 

I think that you said that you're an attorney, right? If so, I'd be surprised if you didn't hear about the history of the filibuster back in law school. (And if so, you must have went to Creighton Law. Kidding. Kidding. )

[strigori]

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.

You realize that 'a simple majority' is the standard for pretty much everything right? Why should a filibuster have similar requirements as a Constitutional Amendment? Super-majorities are not needed for passing laws at any level. Why should breaking a filibuster be harder than passing an actual law? A bill will pass the Senate with only 51 votes.

 

The other two branches of government are your checks to protect the minority.