• 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!

Senate approves nuclear option

No, I don't like changing the rules, despite what I wrote in the OP, I think he filibuster is very important. I am positive Harry Reid feels the same way, but unfortunately the Republicans left him with no choice.



Sure I know what the Republicans could do given the right circumstance, but that would mean eliminating the filibuster altogether. That's not going to happen, I think the Republicans has more sense than that.
 

In your mind - is there a difference between MOB RULE and MAJORITY RULE?
 

Yes, exactly what the framers did not want. But we have our new framers, Obama, Reid, and the rest of them. Obama declared a short while ago that he is "remaking the courts". Isn't that great? Since when is it the president's job to remake the courts? And from what to what? A body that is supposed to obey the Constitution to one that ignores it and grants broad power to the executive branch?

These are scary times for this country, and I can't remember anytime before when a president tried to circumvent the Constitution and grab power as much as this guy. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he's trying to destroy it. And he has the Senate helping, as evidenced by what Reid just did.
 

Sorry, hiding behind the Constitution on this one is beyond a stretch. There is nothing constitutional about the filibuster.

If the Cons wanted the filibuster, we would still have it. They really don't want it; they wanted the Dems to do the dirty work to get rid of it
 

That's an interesting theory. But where do you get the idea that filibustering is unconstitutional?
 
Visbek said:
if the Republicans get a majority in the Senate, will you push them to restore the filibuster rules?
Click to expand...

After they clean up the messes the Democrats have made. :lol:
 

Hardly, given that 1/4 of the US population is represented by 62 US Senators (mostly Red States, BTW) and 3/4 of the US population is represented by 38 Senators....

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html

Given the small state super-majority, the Senate is hardly a House of Representatives.
 
nota bene said:
That's an interesting theory. But where do you get the idea that filibustering is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I did not say the filibuster was unconstitutional. It is a-Constitutional (neither affirmed nor denied in the Constitutional). I was responding to a suggestion that the so-called "nuclear option" was an affront the the Constitution. Getting rid of the filibuster is not a constitutional issue; it is a Senate rule of order. Dumping the filibuster may be in bad form amongst senators, but it is not, as the previous poster suggested, an affront to the Constitution.
 
upsideguy said:
I did not say the filibuster was unconstitutional.QUOTE]

Indeed you did, and only four posts ago: "Sorry, hiding behind the Constitution on this one is beyond a stretch. There is nothing constitutional about the filibuster."
Click to expand...
 
MMC said:
Yeah they can replace department heads. But there should be a requirement that they have some background in that position.
Click to expand...
The President can use whatever criteria he or she wants. The Senate, in turn, can use whatever criteria they believe is appropriate.


I didn't see it that way.....as if they are classified as bi-polar, or have dementia, and or ALS.
Click to expand...
These are three very different diseases, with different effects. If you have depression, it is sometimes treatable. ALS is a terrible disease, but it affects motor function, not cognition. District courts are already trying to step up to determine which judges are becoming incapacitated from dementia.


I would think that would remove quite a bit of those liberal and progressive judges from the bench. Especially all those Bi-polar and ADD ones.
Click to expand...
Uhm... Not all older judges are liberal/progressive, and not all judges with dementia are liberal/progressive. That's patently absurd.
 
Objective Voice said:
No, he cannot. You've been listening to too much talk radio my friend.
Click to expand...
Follow the thread. I was specifically referring to MMC's plan to replace judges more frequently.

In addition, only one Supreme Court justice has ever been filibustered, and then only for four days.
 

The framers designed the house, the peoples house to represent the people, hence each district is to have so many people in it. The framers wanted the senate to represent the states, not the people in the states. This is why originally the framers had the state legislatures or governor or however each state chose to either appoint or elect the two senators from their state. The state was never intended to represent people. So what you state has no bases in the original design of the senate. Of course when the 17th amendment was passed that was the beginning death blow of the senate representing the states. Prior to the 17th, each state could tell their senators how to vote or what stance to take on the issues. The senators represented their states. Today, IMO each senator represents their political party much more than even the people in their state. Senators more times than not will side with the wishes of their party instead of the wishes of supposed the people and the state they were sent to Washington to represent.

The president was to be elected by the votes of the states, hence again originally each state was given a choice of how to determine their electors. The framers had no intention of having the popular vote elect the president. The framers didn't care if a state choose its electors by popular vote, by their legislatures, in a smoke filled room, that was entirely up to each state. The bottom line in the Representative Republic the framers left us, not a direct democracy, was only the house was to be chosen by the people. Hence the term peoples house.
 
Perotista said:
the constitution simply states the senate can make its own rules, specifying a simple majority is not in it.
Click to expand...
The filibuster is not in the Constitution, whereas "simple majority" is.


The filibuster has been around since 1806...
Click to expand...
...and it has rarely been used. Until 1975, the rules made it difficult to filibuster. As the rules eased, filibusters have become downright routine. Its removal was also 100% above board, since the Senate voted to change its own rules.


speaking of doing away with the electoral college, I think it would take a constitutional amendment to do that.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. Which is why, unfortunately, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.


Perhaps it is time to just let each political party do exactly what they want to do, it is that way anyway.
Click to expand...
No, I'd say it is time for both parties to ease back on the partisanship, and especially for the Republicans to stop it with the self-destructive obstructionism.
 
Like I said to pbrauer:

Would you have said that when the democrats were holding up republican nominees?
Click to expand...
 
Anthony60 said:
Yes, exactly what the framers did not want. But we have our new framers, Obama, Reid, and the rest of them. Obama declared a short while ago that he is "remaking the courts". Isn't that great?
Click to expand...
He was referring to speeding up the pace of nominations.

And yes, making appointments is his job.


Since when is it the president's job to remake the courts?
Click to expand...
Since day 1. Jefferson, for example, inherited courts packed with Federalists -- whom he tried to yank out by impeaching the whole lot of them. (He was stopped fairly quickly.)


And from what to what? A body that is supposed to obey the Constitution to one that ignores it and grants broad power to the executive branch?
Click to expand...
Into a system with climbing vacancies, to one with actual judges doing their job.


These are scary times for this country, and I can't remember anytime before when a president tried to circumvent the Constitution and grab power as much as this guy.
Click to expand...
Uh, how about pretty much every President in the past 50 years? Bush 43 was particularly egregious, with the warrantless wiretaps, ripping up due process with a mere accusation of "terrorism," expanding the NSA. Reagan, lauded by conservatives, directly violated the law by selling arms to the Contras. Nixon shredded the Constitution by subverting the entire electoral process. Roosevelt infamously tried to pack the Supreme Court, and pushed the limits of executive powers.

I might add that a bit of back-and-forth between branches is perfectly normal. There is absolutely no way to have a perfect balance of all the branches, all the time.
 

That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened. You have two hard heads as leaders of the senate, both Reid and McConnell IMO put their party 50,000 miles above the country. Something like this would have never happened under the leadership of Robert Byrd or Howard Baker, under George Mitchell or Robert Dole, not even under Tom Daschle or Trent Lott.

I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House. The senate does have the power to amend, add, delete and change every one of those bills to make them very friendly. It was a two way street. If we had different leaders in the senate, perhaps an Alexander and a Leahey, there would have been no need for Reids Rule.

But it is what it is and the political parties can have their own way. The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it. I'll go back to my business of forecasting elections and let the two parties tear each other apart. Why not, there are no more rules.
 

APPLAUSE :applaud
 
Visbek said:
Can what both ways?

And why should anyone give a crap about a "tradition," with no Constitutional basis, that is holding up the entire government?
Click to expand...

Holding up the government is often the wisest action. A few republicans started a filibuster of corrupt associate justice Abe Fortas when LBJ wanted that crook as CJ. the delay allowed more information to be gathered-information so damning that Fortas NOT ONLY WITHDREW as the nominee for the CJ, he resigned from his associate seat on the bench.

so sometimes delay is a good thing
 
Perotista said:
That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened.
Click to expand...
Of course it can. Since you missed it, the US got so divided that we had a civil war -- and we came back from it. The divide between North and South was also very extreme in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement came to a head. There is no reason why politicians can't walk back from the precipice, especially if the public really bothers to push for it.


I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm gonna side with Mann and Ornstein on this one. The Democrats are far from innocent, but the majority of the blame for the current stalemate and hostility happens to lie with the Republicans, and is based in their bomb-throwing anti-government agenda.


The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it.
Click to expand...
Using a loophole to eliminate a loophole is a wonderful irony.

And again, the Republicans almost "went nuclear" in 2005, when they were frustrated over the holdups of Bush nominees. The only reason they're going ballistic over this is not because they are concerned for the minority (which, given their attempts to disenfranchise minorities across the US, is a cruel irony), but because it's an action taken by the Democrats -- which means they have obligated themselves to oppose it.
 

The only way of an easing up of the political poisonous atmospher in D.C. is if we were, as voters to send most packing. But we in the electorate are not going to do that. Then you have the problem in the house where gerrymandering creats safe districts which in itself causes those who sit in them to become very hard left and right. Well most of the electorate is somewhere in the middle, most of those in congress are on the fringes. So I do not see changes coming anytime soon.

Siding with one side or the other is your perogitive. I prefer to blame both parties.

Speaking of irony, how about the party most known for protecting minority rights just nuked the minorty party of its rights. FYI I was opposed to it in 2005 also. Like I said I am a traditionalist. I would rather suffer though non-appointments for a year or two than see protection of the minority eliminated. Once used, it will become common place, hence I am of the oppinion to just do away with it now.

I still think they, the Democrats should have listen to Levin. He was in the minority once before, not like 33 Democratic who voted for the Nuke option who never served in the minority. There is something to be said for the widom and experience of someone who has been there and done that. But it is what it is.

I wonder if there are any lessons to be learned for the 21st of November action and if there are, what are they?
 

Where are you getting these numbers. This link quotes completely different data: Are Republicans really blocking Obama



It is out of control, from BOTH SIDES. Who started it, does not matter, but the invokation of the Nuclear Option is a bad move for the Republic.
 
TurtleDude said:
so sometimes delay is a good thing
Click to expand...

And when "sometimes" become "every time," it is not a good thing. The GOP couldn't play with their toy responsibly, so now nobody gets to have it.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.
That is a republicon thing .
Click to expand...

I'd say you have a very short memory, but chances are, you were never aware of this to begin with:


George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

It's just changing certain appointments back to the constitutionally-identified simple majority rather than the de-facto supermajority that it has become. It's hardly an earth-shattering event and I really wish the media would stop referring it by the same name we use to identify the worst weapons ever created by mankind.
 
Deuce said:
And when "sometimes" become "every time," it is not a good thing. The GOP couldn't play with their toy responsibly, so now nobody gets to have it.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you or Harry Reid are all that objective when it comes to using the term "responsible"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…