• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe that the Senate Confirmation Process is broken?

Do you believe that the Senate Confirmation Process is broken?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Who cares?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
I bet there are some who believe both the Senate and the Congress should be absorbed into the Obama Presidency.
 
No. Though appointments a scarce, this is okay as these positions are political, come with a political cost, and sometimes the people appointed are politically untenable.
 
Broken is probably too strong a word, but it could certainly use some improvement.
 
Broken is probably too strong a word, but it could certainly use some improvement.

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.
 
Yes and no.

How do you define "process?"

I'd argue that the procedures for a Senate Confirmation are fine, same as they've ever been.

The problem is that the voting is now done purely on a political stance that often has nothing to do with the person being confirmed.
 
I dint think the problem lies in the Congress, I think it is the government meaning the people just not interested in participating.

The reason Obama was reelected is because voters that would have supported the other party started home either because they had some prejudice against his religion, or he wasn't perfect.

Its hard to bitch about losing when you surrender. But this is the problem people just dint care to govern themselves.
 
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.
 
If the procedure is not working, for whatever reason, it is time to re-examine the procedure.

There is nothing wrong with the procedure though. It is working as it should. I would have to agree with OC. The problem lies with the voters who choose these people as representatives. We get what we vote for. So if you want more confirmations, though I don't see why anyone would with the people we have in office now, gather up your friends, neighbors, and anyone else and vote for people who want to compromise.
 
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 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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I do not disagree with you as for what is ideal, desired, or in theory.
But I suppose I am viewing this more from a reality or a problem solving position.
"Should be" and "If Only" are not actual solutions, even if they are correct in theory.

Pandora's box has been opened.
It is not as though Democrats will just forget what has been done to them.
Acting without honor and abusing the system will be the new norm... forever. Until the filibuster is removed.
I am sorry for us all, but we can never go back. Congress will forever be conducted without honor for now on.

The only "SOLUTION" I see, is to remove the filibuster.
If you have an alternative, I'd love to hear it.
 
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.
 
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.
 
But that would only affect the House, not the Senate where nominations occur.

But it should bleed over. Once representative races start to become moderate heavy, any crazies on the senate will look comparatively nuts. You gotta start somewhere. Also, it might be possible to redistrict Senate districts as well to make them competitive. Make two districts of equal weight to both parties and independents. Harder than House, but still possible.

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.

Thus why we need a referendum to start in a state like California. Hand it over to a computer that does the redistricting and make the entire process transparent.
 
Back
Top Bottom