marcus903
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 123
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes and no.
Yes and no.
Broken is probably too strong a word, but it could certainly use some improvement.
Yes and no.
The procedural process itself is fine. It's just who is doing the voting is the problem.
Democracy is only as good its voters, the same thing can be said of Senate Confirmation processes.
If the procedure is not working, for whatever reason, it is time to re-examine the procedure.
The system was always broken. It just never became apparent because our people possessed honor, respect, and integrity.
Our system only works when we have these values. Without them, everything begins to unravel.
1 half black President has had more nominations filibustered than all white Presidents combined throughout history.
Many of his nominees have been moderates and some have even been Republicans.
There is no real difference in the nominees, only a difference in the President.
I'd say it is quite broken.
The flip side of this is that the process was always fine, it's the people voting now who are broken.
Two sides of the same coin eh?
Same coin indeed.
But either way, the filibuster needs to be removed for nominations. A simple majority plus the President should be plenty.
It had reasonable and honorable purpose initially, but when we find ourselves with a Congress without any honor or respect, who only want to abuse it to harm a President, regardless of cost to Country... it is quite simply time for it to go.
Well, here I'm not so sure.
The Democrats IMO were right to filibuster the crap out of Bush's nomination of Brown. She legislated from the bench and ignored statutory law. It was ironic how the GOP who attacks Judges on alleged "judicial activism" were promoting a candidate who by all measures was a judicial activist, ignoring the legislated law for what she thought was right. If she was given a chance for up or down vote, we'd have a judicial activist making in through and a judicial activist who celebrated in her judicial activism.
Some candidates SHOULD be filibustered. The problem is that EVERY candidate is being filibustered.
The only "SOLUTION" I see, is to remove the filibuster.
If you have an alternative, I'd love to hear it.
Redistrict so that every district is competitive. This will put moderates and compromises back in office. Once you fix who's voting, the process in which confirmation is done is solved.
But that would only affect the House, not the Senate where nominations occur.
For the House, I agree with you again in "theory". But what your talking about is putting an end to Gerrymandering. And that is just NOT going to happen.
It would require the party with all the power in a given district or State to give that power up willingly.
Again, I think your view is excellent in a perfect world. But it is not a viable solution within our reality.