Senate Changes Filibuster Rules

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Nov 21, 2013.

  1. rdowns, Nov 21, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    EDIT: The rule change passed.


    I was against this until I saw the graphic below. Apparently, the Republicans don't know what 'advise and consent' means. Also kind of funny how it is referred to as the 'nuclear option' yet when McConnell was in the same position in 2005, it was called the "Constitutional option'. By the way, there are 93 vacancies on the federal courts right now.


    [​IMG]
     
  2. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2
    This is going to sound weird, but I'm both for it and against it, as both parties should be.

    It's funny how when one party has control of the Senate, such as in now, or from 2000-2006, it was referred to in one party as a "constitutional option", but to the opposing party, it is a "nuclear option". Both of those are slanted to the particular party's views.

    I'm for it, because the stats don't lie there; the Reds have been very obstructive, and they can't deny it. People wonder why they aren't getting any work done? here's the answer. Changing that actually may start to get some work done, and perhaps stop dragging their approval rating down to near single digits.

    I'm against, it, because turnabout is fair game. The Blues have filibustered nominations and bills when the Reds controlled both houses as well, and this was the biggest tool they had. Now they've taken it away, and potentially shot themselves in the foot. McConnell has already threatened them by saying that "they will regret this". (Incidentally, McConnell is already in enough hot water for breaking his word to cooperate more in the Senate; something he has yet to do).

    Finally, If the Blues are smart and retain the Senate after midterms, they should, should the Reds take the White House in 2016, change the rules again towards the beginning of the next POTUS term so recover this tool.

    Political games are afoot.

    BL.
     
  3. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #3
    Whether or not they do this, the Democrats have already been threatened with this option back during the Bush presidency. So ... regardless of what they do, they're screwed if/when the Republicans take over again.
     
  4. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    The rule change applies to Presidential/Executive branch and judicial branch, except Supreme Court nominees only. There is no change to filibustering legislation.
     
  5. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    That's right, but my point is that if the Blues find themselves in the minority again, simple majority rules (per this change) would block any attempt they have at blocking a nomination to the bench.

    Hence, why I said that since this is a Senatorial rule, nothing is stopping them from calling for another vote to change it back, should they lose the Senate.

    BL.
     
  6. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6

    It's called the "nuclear option" because it was a last resort plan that could have devastation and far reaching effects.
     
  7. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #7
    Would have been nice if the GOP had followed the precedent set by Democrats during the W years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

    Guess they just couldn't help themselves...
     
  8. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #8
    And that would be a good thing, if the people in the US are foolish enough to vote the Republicans into power they should get the results of that. Plus having a functioning government with polices that you may disagree with is better than having a non-functioning one that you agree with.
     
  9. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9

    Yep, elections have consequences. A President should be able to nominate his team and vacant judgeships and they should get a swift up or down vote. Note the Senate's responsibility is to 'advice and consent', not advice and dissent.
     
  10. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #10
    Precedent set by Democrats? You're kidding, right? The GOP didn't use the nuclear option. The Democrats did.

    BTW, the first thing the Senate wants to do is to approve the 3 judges that were nominated to the DC Circuit Court. Mind you, these are ADDITIONAL and UNNEEDED judges, not replacements for those who have retired or stepped down. These nominees have been appointed to intentionally change the balance on the court. It's part of Obama's court packing scheme to take control of what is arguably the second-most important circuit in the country. He didn't like the court's rulings on his recess appointments, executive actions, and regulations, so his approach is to change the composition of the court in his favor. More pure partisan politics from this President.
     
  11. Kurwenal macrumors 6502a

    Kurwenal

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    #11
    Majority rules. Even 51.

    All of the arcane rules and traditions in the Senate, designed primarily as near as I can tell to make individual Senators feel more important, are nuts. The notion that any single Senator can put a "hold" on any nomination is, well, nuts. Give everything an up or down vote, 51 or more votes wins. Simple. Maybe the electorate will start to pay better attention.

    The funny part is that the Dems waited until so far into Obama's presidency to do this. They lost out on 5 years of appointments.
     
  12. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12

    It never ceases to amaze me how people buy Republican talking points while the truth is so easy to find.

    This is not "court packing". Court packing is proposing to change the makeup of a court, either expanding or decreasing the number of judges. These are existing vacancies that Obama is filling. In fact, the only one trying to pack the court is Chuck Grassley who wants to reduce that court from 11 to 8 members and keep it slanted right.
     
  13. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    Mitch McConnell: "It's a power play!"

    How ironic coming from him....

    The President of the United States has the right to fill vacancies in his Administration and the government. The GOP is trying to subvert this process no matter how adverse the effects. I agree with the observation they are trying to nullify the last election. Now they are reaping what they have sewn. This is par for the course don't you think?

    ----------

    The GOP echo chamber at times is deafening in this forum.
     
  14. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #14
    The court is supposed to have 11 judges. It has 8. Therefore, the 3 judges are not additional, they're not unneeded, they're supposed to be there. And it's Obama's duty to fill those spots. Stop spewing talking points.
     
  15. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #15

    Read :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit

    Obama is trying to fill a vacancy left by the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

    There IS supposed to be 11 not 8.
     
  16. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #16
  17. rdowns, Nov 21, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013

    rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17

    Can you explain to me how, if these 3 seats are ADDITIONAL and UNNEEDED, why Senator Grassley would be proposing this bill? See page 2, line 5.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s699is/pdf/BILLS-113s699is.pdf

    Chief Justice John Roberts has also told Congress that the court should remain at 11 seats due to the complexity of the matters the court takes up.
     
  18. Kurwenal macrumors 6502a

    Kurwenal

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    #18
    How silly. The court should be 11 judges when the Republicans have the White House, and 8 when the Democrats do. Very simple. ;)
     
  19. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #19
    I also quoted tgara.

    Just wanted to make sure everybody knows.

    :)
     
  20. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #20
    I'm hoping that if the GOP gets a majority they keep all the rules in place,
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    Doubt it.

    See, if it's up to the Sen. Majority leader to call for the rule change and vote on it, should the Reds take the Senate, during the lame duck sessions, the Blues can vote to change it back.

    Or wouldn't you say that all is fair in politics and obstructionism?

    BL.
     
  22. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #22
    Okay, usually people quote me when they're telling me I'm wrong.
     
  23. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #23
    If the blues change it back after the reds take the Senate all the reds have to do is the same thing as the blues did.

    A vicious circle.

    There should be some kind of unchangeable rule with a simple majority of 51.
     
  24. Giuly, Nov 21, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013

    Giuly macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #24
    Meet honorable Senator Buster F. Illy:
    [​IMG]

    "Let's just filibuster all of them until Obama nominates republicans for the positions. Problem?"
     
  25. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #25
    Reid and the Democrats got played.

    McConnell and the GOP purposely pushed Reid toward the so called "nuclear option."

    The GOP will regain the Senate. Politics is cyclical. And when they do, they will eliminate the filibuster entirely - for legislation and for Supreme Court justices. And the will spin it as the Democrats being the ones who set the precedent.
     

Share This Page