• 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

And you think that when the Democrats are a minority again this won't comeback to hunt them since they will have no weapons to fight with remember Dems. filibustered President Bush's nominations.

No...I actually don't think it will. I think outside of parties it's ridiculous that Presidents are having problems nominating Executive branch positions. It's also ridiculous that there's so many unappointed positions out there.

So either A)...Dems obstruct a Republican President as much as Republicans have. We basically leave tons of empty seats in the courts. Nobody wins.
B)....Dems allow Republicans to obstruct until they gain the majority and a President then play along and don't obstruct. Rep win
C)...either party with a majority in the senate and a President can appoint whoever they want. Both "win"

I'm not sure how anything other than this ends with the Dems in a better position.
 
It will come back to hunt them. When there is a Republican President and Republican Majority in the Senate. The Dems will be powerless to stop their Appointments. Also if there is a Dem president and Rep. Senate. The Dems will be powerless to stop the Reps from shooting down all his Appts.

Thats fine. Then Dems will shoot down all of a Republican Presidents appointments. This whole situation is a result of Republican actions. The Dems are reacting
 
No...I actually don't think it will. I think outside of parties it's ridiculous that Presidents are having problems nominating Executive branch positions. It's also ridiculous that there's so many unappointed positions out there.

So either A)...Dems obstruct a Republican President as much as Republicans have. We basically leave tons of empty seats in the courts. Nobody wins.
B)....Dems allow Republicans to obstruct until they gain the majority and a President then play along and don't obstruct. Rep win
C)...either party with a majority in the senate and a President can appoint whoever they want. Both "win"

I'm not sure how anything other than this ends with the Dems in a better position.

Maybe not, but this is going to do them damage....What a loser Harry Reid is....But, hey, you libs are trashing everything else that has to do with the founding, and set up of this country, so why not this 225 year old precedent as well...? :shrug:
 
Sure...because Unanimous Consent to debate isn't possible. I'm not sure how you come to a conclusion that a Senate minority party that has actually filibustered as many appointments than almost every Senate minority in the history of the filibuster is playing along and allowing Unanimous Consent.




There is a pretty large difference between a Presidents last year in office an right after he was re-elected. That's called cherry picking my friend.

So long as the majority is not allowing the minority to be represented, this is what they will continue to get. And they should get. This country is a representative democracy where all opinions are supposed to be represented, not just the majority.
 
No...I actually don't think it will. I think outside of parties it's ridiculous that Presidents are having problems nominating Executive branch positions. It's also ridiculous that there's so many unappointed positions out there.

So either A)...Dems obstruct a Republican President as much as Republicans have. We basically leave tons of empty seats in the courts. Nobody wins.
B)....Dems allow Republicans to obstruct until they gain the majority and a President then play along and don't obstruct. Rep win
C)...either party with a majority in the senate and a President can appoint whoever they want. Both "win"

I'm not sure how anything other than this ends with the Dems in a better position.

How many? They've confirmed 1600 positions so far.
 
Maybe not, but this is going to do them damage....What a loser Harry Reid is....But, hey, you libs are trashing everything else that has to do with the founding, and set up of this country, so why not this 225 year old precedent as well...? :shrug:

Yeah...requiring a Super Majority was debated during the Constitutional Convention. It was shot down except in specific situations mentioned in the Constitution. The requiring of 2/3rds a majority is undemocratic and against the views of the founders.
 
So long as the majority is not allowing the minority to be represented, this is what they will continue to get. And they should get. This country is a representative democracy where all opinions are supposed to be represented, not just the majority.

Republicans control the House. The structure of government and the Supreme Court is how minority rights are protected not some archaic parliamentary procedure created by chance in the 1800's.

I'm curious...do you think they should reinstate the filibuster into the House?
 
How many? They've confirmed 1600 positions so far.

Every open position. That's kind of how it works. A new President comes in and appoints the heads of agencies in the Executive branch to carry out his agenda.

When openings pop up in the judicial branch he appoints people to fill the positions.
 
This country is a representative democracy where all opinions are supposed to be represented, not just the majority.

Yes, the right (and the left) always support the minority when its something THEY want, but then cry about tyranny from the minority when it is something they don't like.
 
Yeah...requiring a Super Majority was debated during the Constitutional Convention. It was shot down except in specific situations mentioned in the Constitution. The requiring of 2/3rds a majority is undemocratic and against the views of the founders.

You simply don't know what you are talking about....

"The biggest loser, however, will not be Democrats or Republicans, but the American constitutional system. Like several other parts of the Obama administration’s political program, the filibuster’s end sacrifices unique constitutional and political features of the American government for short-term political gain. Worried about minority rights, the Framers designed a Constitution that imposed a difficult, hazardous path before any government action could be taken. Legislation had to be able to run the gauntlet of the popular House, the state-chosen Senate, and the nationally elected president, before braving federalism’s limited enumeration on federal powers. “Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people,” James Madison explained in Federalist 51. “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Under the Framers’ design, domestic action could flow only from high levels of political consensus built upon long and careful deliberation. It forced the political parties to compromise — if President Bush had truly wanted Estrada on the courts, he should have traded political favors with Senate Democrats. Though ever frustrating to those who demand immediate reform or unchecked majority rule, the filibuster rule bolstered these unique features of the American Constitution. They imparted a stability to government and a resistance to sudden impulses that spared the United States the trials and tribulations of Europe, where parliamentary government has often led to wild swings of policy. As political sociologist Louis Hartz observed long ago, there is a reason why the United States never suffered the evils of socialism or Communism.

Democrats, however, have little difficulty trading constitutional stability for short-term political advantage. The filibuster’s end falls in line with President Obama’s refusal to fulfill his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, merely to avoid the radioactive political fallout from his signature health-care law or dictate his preferred immigration reforms. It fits neatly Obamacare’s erasure of the limits on the powers of the federal government over interstate commerce, spending, and taxation, and with the president’s political browbeating of the Supreme Court for the assist. But these political victories, evanescent as they will be, will do permanent harm to the American political and constitutional system, which may well remain the longest-lasting legacy of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in the Senate."

Reid's Filibuster Power Play Is a Blow to American Constitutional System | National Review Online
 
Maybe not, but this is going to do them damage....What a loser Harry Reid is....But, hey, you libs are trashing everything else that has to do with the founding, and set up of this country, so why not this 225 year old precedent as well...?
The filibuster was not intentionally designed by the Senate. It was a result of a small change in Senate rules, to eliminate a procedure that (at the time) was rarely used. In fact, it was never used until the 1830s. Cloture was introduced after World War I. The filibuster rules were significantly strengthened in 1975. Its use during the Obama term, including using threats to filibuster, is unprecedented. It was also used repeatedly during Bush 43's term.

All that said: When a "tradition" prevents the government from actually doing its job, then it's time to retire that specific tradition.
 
Republicans control the House. The structure of government and the Supreme Court is how minority rights are protected not some archaic parliamentary procedure created by chance in the 1800's.

I'm curious...do you think they should reinstate the filibuster into the House?

No, I think the Republicans should allow the Democrats to put forth bills, amendments, and only pass legislation that has support of both parties. The filibuster is irrelevant.
 
The filibuster was not intentionally designed by the Senate. It was a result of a small change in Senate rules, to eliminate a procedure that (at the time) was rarely used. In fact, it was never used until the 1830s. Cloture was introduced after World War I. The filibuster rules were significantly strengthened in 1975. Its use during the Obama term, including using threats to filibuster, is unprecedented. It was also used repeatedly during Bush 43's term.

All that said: When a "tradition" prevents the government from actually doing its job, then it's time to retire that specific tradition.

Yep, and as I recall when the repubs wanted to use this option, the demo's like Reid were all over them, only to use it themselves now like true hypocrites....What a bunch of liars liberal demo's are.
 
Every open position. That's kind of how it works. A new President comes in and appoints the heads of agencies in the Executive branch to carry out his agenda.

When openings pop up in the judicial branch he appoints people to fill the positions.

You meant the agenda of the country, not the Presidents agenda right? Since theres also something called Congress.
 
You simply don't know what you are talking about....

"The biggest loser, however, will not be Democrats or Republicans, but the American constitutional system. Like several other parts of the Obama administration’s political program, the filibuster’s end sacrifices unique constitutional and political features of the American government for short-term political gain. Worried about minority rights, the Framers designed a Constitution that imposed a difficult, hazardous path before any government action could be taken. Legislation had to be able to run the gauntlet of the popular House, the state-chosen Senate, and the nationally elected president, before braving federalism’s limited enumeration on federal powers. “Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people,” James Madison explained in Federalist 51. “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Under the Framers’ design, domestic action could flow only from high levels of political consensus built upon long and careful deliberation. It forced the political parties to compromise — if President Bush had truly wanted Estrada on the courts, he should have traded political favors with Senate Democrats. Though ever frustrating to those who demand immediate reform or unchecked majority rule, the filibuster rule bolstered these unique features of the American Constitution. They imparted a stability to government and a resistance to sudden impulses that spared the United States the trials and tribulations of Europe, where parliamentary government has often led to wild swings of policy. As political sociologist Louis Hartz observed long ago, there is a reason why the United States never suffered the evils of socialism or Communism.

Democrats, however, have little difficulty trading constitutional stability for short-term political advantage. The filibuster’s end falls in line with President Obama’s refusal to fulfill his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, merely to avoid the radioactive political fallout from his signature health-care law or dictate his preferred immigration reforms. It fits neatly Obamacare’s erasure of the limits on the powers of the federal government over interstate commerce, spending, and taxation, and with the president’s political browbeating of the Supreme Court for the assist. But these political victories, evanescent as they will be, will do permanent harm to the American political and constitutional system, which may well remain the longest-lasting legacy of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in the Senate."

Reid's Filibuster Power Play Is a Blow to American Constitutional System | National Review Online

I'm not sure how that proves me wrong....as mentioned in other posts of mine the minority was protected by having 3 branches and a bicameral legislative body. It's an op-ed piece that doesn't discuss the history of the filibuster. Apparently it's sacrosanct...in fact if you feel so strongly about it I'm surprised Conservatives haven't tried to reintroduce it into the House. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I guess you can go ahead and be Outraged! just like Conservatives were Outraged! during 2005 when Bush appointments were getting filibustered and were calling for the use of the nuclear option.

The rest is just an op-ed piece talking about how glorious the filibuster is. Of course...this is the Rich Lowry from the National Review in 2005

The judicial filibuster isn't a tradition, but an innovation; not a function of checks and balances, but a perversion of them; not an outgrowth of the Constitution, but at best irrelevant to it.

[...]

During the contentious fight over Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, Democrats who were harshly opposed to him still refused to filibuster his nomination, even though they would have had the votes to do so. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy called a filibuster against Thomas "nonsense" and a "crazy idea," declaring himself "totally opposed to a filibuster."

Democrats point to a filibuster of Lyndon Baines Johnson's 1968 attempt to elevate Abe Fortas from an associate justice to chief justice of the Supreme Court as a precedent. But it was different in kind from today's filibusters. It was bipartisan. Twenty-four Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against ending the filibuster. Fortas almost certainly didn't have the support to pass on an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Hurt by ethics charges, he soon withdrew his nomination, and ended up resigning from the court. The case was truly exceptional.

[...]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should take away their ability to mount unprecedented judicial filibusters through the so-called nuclear option, then sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition. [National Review, 5/13/05, via Media Matters]

And this is about Supreme Court nominees!
 
No, I think the Republicans should allow the Democrats to put forth bills, amendments, and only pass legislation that has support of both parties. The filibuster is irrelevant.

Well that's not how it operates...but I guess my question is...why? How do you think a Democracy would operate if it required the support of everybody to pass anything. Most of the hard situations that face the country divide the country.
 
You meant the agenda of the country, not the Presidents agenda right? Since theres also something called Congress.

Nope. Executive branch appointees generally follow the agenda of the President.

Bush's agenda was business friendly...so he appointed people to regulatory agencies that allowed business to do whatever they wanted. Like oil companies practically fill out their own safety inspection forms.

He also appointed very lax EPA heads.

Obama is appointing very tough EPA heads.
 
I'm not sure how that proves me wrong....as mentioned in other posts of mine the minority was protected by having 3 branches and a bicameral legislative body. It's an op-ed piece that doesn't discuss the history of the filibuster. Apparently it's sacrosanct...in fact if you feel so strongly about it I'm surprised Conservatives haven't tried to reintroduce it into the House. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I guess you can go ahead and be Outraged! just like Conservatives were Outraged! during 2005 when Bush appointments were getting filibustered and were calling for the use of the nuclear option.

The rest is just an op-ed piece talking about how glorious the filibuster is. Of course...this is the Rich Lowry from the National Review in 2005



And this is about Supreme Court nominees!

Actually it's John Yoo, but you'd actually have to have read the article before criticizing it to know that....;)
 
Actually it's John Yoo, but you'd actually have to have read the article before criticizing it to know that....;)

The one I linked was Rich Lowry.

I didn't criticize the article...I pointed out that it has nothing to do with the filibuster being some intent of the founders or some super important thing outside of the opinion of the writer.
 
The one I linked was Rich Lowry.

I didn't criticize the article...I pointed out that it has nothing to do with the filibuster being some intent of the founders or some super important thing outside of the opinion of the writer.

Whatever, just throw the whole thing in the trash right? Isn't that what revisionist liberals like you think anyway.
 
Whatever, just throw the whole thing in the trash right? Isn't that what revisionist liberals like you think anyway.

Uhhh....Conservatives were calling for that in 2005....but yeah...the Senate makes it's own rules (per the constitution) and the filibuster has existed with the view that it was used sparingly. For the past 20 years the use has ramped up so maybe extreme partisanship doesn't allow for the ability for one Senator to require a Super majority to get appointments passed.
 
Uhhh....Conservatives were calling for that in 2005....but yeah...the Senate makes it's own rules (per the constitution) and the filibuster has existed with the view that it was used sparingly. For the past 20 years the use has ramped up so maybe extreme partisanship doesn't allow for the ability for one Senator to require a Super majority to get appointments passed.

But they didn't do it, did they?
 
But they didn't do it, did they?

No...but now we are in the realm of hypothetical. The obstruction now is worse than ever. Obama has had almost as many appointments blocked as every previous president before him (it's like 84 O vs 86 rest). Even in the face of that Harry Reid has held off...even tried to bargain with Republicans (remember the fillibuster agreement?). He's dragged his feet on this for a long time.

So....I think a better question is...Republicans facing much less obstructionism were calling for the filibuster. Do you think they would of used the nuclear option if they faced the same level Dems do now?
 
Sure...because Unanimous Consent to debate isn't possible. I'm not sure how you come to a conclusion that a Senate minority party that has actually filibustered as many appointments than almost every Senate minority in the history of the filibuster is playing along and allowing Unanimous Consent.

They haven't "filibustered", again, learn what the term means.

And when you say "filibustered as many appointments than almost every Senate minority in the history" what exactly do you mean? If you meant "more than almost any" then I'd point out my previous proof that the these Republicans pale in comparison to Harry Reid's minority in the 108th senate.

The only difference in the number of cloture votes in this run of Reid as majority leader has been the sheer number of cloture votes he has called. The rate of failure is much the same rate as any other Senate. The only real surge in the rate of failed cloture votes was when Reid was the minority leader.


There is a pretty large difference between a Presidents last year in office an right after he was re-elected. That's called cherry picking my friend.

What difference would that be, exactly? The cloture votes only matter when the Senate Minority is the opposition party to the President. When Reid was Majority leader in the Senate during the Bush years there was no need for a cloture vote because it was assumed that the minority party wasn't going to filibuster a Bush nominee. The comparison is really only valid when the Senate minority is the opposition party to the President, so comparing 108th senate to 113th -- the year Reid claims was so bad he needed to change the rules -- is entirely appropriate.

You just call "cherry picking" because it's easier than actually formulating a valid counter argument, or realize you really can't mount a valid counter argument.
 
Yep, and as I recall when the repubs wanted to use this option, the demo's like Reid were all over them, only to use it themselves now like true hypocrites....What a bunch of liars liberal demo's are.
Both sides have flipped. If the Democrats are "liars," then so are the Republicans who have changed their mind.

While I believe partisanship is framing much of the debate, it makes more sense to recognize that both sides have changed their minds, because the situation has changed:
• The level of abuse of the appointment filibusters have gone up significantly, leading Democrats to want to remove it.
• Unlike 2005, Republicans are in the minority in the Senate (as they have been for many years), and have adopted highly obstructionist tactics they don't want to give up.
 
Back
Top Bottom