• 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

This will give you a good idea:
20121130-graph-why-we-need-filibuster-reform.png
There is use ...and then there is abuse.
This graph demonstrates where McConnell clearly crossed the line.
 
Senate approves nuclear option

i don't support this. that being said, i completely understand why they did it. Republican filibusters against Obama nominees account for half of the 168 filibusters of nominees since 1917. it's simply ridiculous. the shoe will be on the other foot someday, though, and possibly even someday soon. poor strategy for the dems.
 
So rather than "doing nothing" they have done exactly what they were elected to do.

Do you believe that they were elected to stop all legislative activity,... or were they elected to govern?
 
This will give you a good idea:
20121130-graph-why-we-need-filibuster-reform.png

And as a reminder, in the past, the majority wouldn't even bother bringing things to the table if it wouldn't get past the filibuster.

However, in this day and age when every vote, debate, and fart is broadcast live on TV, and replayed numerous times for political ads, getting a "filibuster" vote is politically useful. That is the reason for the dramatic increase, its all political theater.
 
It will. However, I approve of that. For presidential appointments, I do not think it should take 60 votes and I do not think ideology should be used to block appointments, and both those go either way. It is a game both sides play, and it really does need to stop. Unless there is something major with an appointment, some ethics violations, clearly unqualified, something like that, then the president does get to pick. That is entirely appropriate, and it does not matter who is president. I did not support and disagreed with the blocking of Bush nominations(and it happened, bigtime) either.
Maybe if the two parties stopped trying to **** each other over at every turn, things would not be so ****ed up
.




Correct.

If the people that we send to congress would spend more time trying to do the nations business and less time trying to screw over the other party maybe we wouldn't be talking about this right now.
 
It's about time Harry.
There will never be a payback.
Even if, by some weird turn of events the republicons regain a senate majority...Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.
That is a republicon thing .
The party of mass obstruction is losing it's grip.




The G-No-P is about to get a massive dose of reality that is long overdue.
 
Wouldn't surprise me if the three Democrats were instructed to vote against the motion so that once all the Obama nominations have been cleared, one of the three can move reconsideration of the motion and rescind it going back to the 60 vote threshold before they lose the Senate in 2014.

That doesn't make any sense at all. If Democrats lose the Senate, the Republicans can just institute it again. Remember? It only requires a majority vote to change the rules.
 
That doesn't make any sense at all. If Democrats lose the Senate, the Republicans can just institute it again. Remember? It only requires a majority vote to change the rules.

Yes, I know, but if the Senate changes hands by a one or two Republican margin, the Republicans may not have sufficient votes to change it, either way. With a very narrow majority, there's no guarantee of unanimity on either side of the issue.
 
Show me where the filibuster was written into the US Constitution. It isn't. In fact, the filibuster was not used for several years after the founding of our nation. It was instituted by a vote on the rules in the Senate. Now the Constitution DOES have something to say about that....


Nothing unconstitutional or illegal was done today.

No, not unconstitution as you stated. The filibuster rule was instituted in 1806. That is a long history to be overturned. But the precedence has been set. From on now regardless of which party has the majority in the senate, if the majority leader wants to get something through the senate, passed and the filibuster is holding it up. All that senate majority leader has to do is point to Senator Reid and cite 21 Nov 2013 and use the nuclear option to get his piece of legislation passed whatever it is. One of the checks and balance of over reaching power, especially if one party holds both chambers and the presidency has been lost. Now do not holler if for example the GOP were to gain control of both chambers of congress and the presidency in 2016, if they use the nuclear option to repeal, say Obamacare, lower tax rates, etc that the Democrats could have stopped with the use of the filibusters. Setting precedents has consequences.

I hope cooler heads prevail, but in today's poisonous political atmosphere in Washington, I really doubt that it will.
 
Do you believe that they were elected to stop all legislative activity,... or were they elected to govern?

Depends on their individual constituencies. Some want congress to stop passing new law and busy themselves fixing the stuff already on the books.
 
This will give you a good idea:
20121130-graph-why-we-need-filibuster-reform.png

Actually, the issue was not that the Republicans were filibuster happy, it was simply that Harry Reid calls a cloture vote on every damn thing for no reason at all.

I did the math here.

What the numbers show is that Harry Reid really really really hates floor debates.
 
Do you believe that they were elected to stop all legislative activity,... or were they elected to govern?

They were elected to represent the interests of those who chose them. If those interests end up being contrary to the interests of some other group then it's reasonable to expect disagreement.

You liberals need to understand that freedom from opposition isn't freedom at all, it's tyranny.
 
So much for protect minority rights, perhaps the dems only protect minority rights when it suits them to do so.
We are moving closer and closer to rule by the majority and a direct democracy.
Where 50% plus 1 vote can have their way over the other 50% less 1 vote. I am disappointed, but not surprised or shocked. This is just another precedence set by a Democrat that those very same Democrats will come back hollering at the top of their lungs when in the majority, the Republicans return the favor.

Bask in the glory is all I can say, because what goes around will come around. I would say as of today the Republican's have a 50-50 shot at gaining control of the Senate in 2014. It looks like Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and Arkansas will change from Dem to Rep, then 2 of 3 of the following states, NC, AK and LA would give them control. These last three are in the toss up column today whereas the other 4 are in the lean Rep column. Interesting, I wonder how loud you will holler when the GOP uses Reid's precedence when they gain control? I fully expect you to support them in the same manner you are supporting Reid today. To do otherwise would be hypercritical and just show one is playing petty politics.

In reality, this single vote doesn't bother me that much. I am just fearful of what will follow. I can see such things happening in the future if the GOP were to win the presidency in 2016 and gained the control of the senate of repealing the ACA by simple majority vote, by repealing the highest tax bracket by simple majority vote, by repealing any democratic legislation they don't like by simple majority vote. The precedence has been set.




I have been saying for several years that if the GOP doesn't make some major changes in the way that it operates and attract more minority voters who will be the majority of the voters in the USA in about thirty years it will end up being reduced to a minor regional party with no national power.

Not my problem.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
No, not unconstitution as you stated. The filibuster rule was instituted in 1806. That is a long history to be overturned. But the precedence has been set. From on now regardless of which party has the majority in the senate, if the majority leader wants to get something through the senate, passed and the filibuster is holding it up. All that senate majority leader has to do is point to Senator Reid and cite 21 Nov 2013 and use the nuclear option to get his piece of legislation passed whatever it is. One of the checks and balance of over reaching power, especially if one party holds both chambers and the presidency has been lost. Now do not holler if for example the GOP were to gain control of both chambers of congress and the presidency in 2016, if they use the nuclear option to repeal, say Obamacare, lower tax rates, etc that the Democrats could have stopped with the use of the filibusters. Setting precedents has consequences.

I hope cooler heads prevail, but in today's poisonous political atmosphere in Washington, I really doubt that it will.

The 60 vote threshold has been modified many times in the past.
 
They were elected to represent the interests of those who chose them. If those interests end up being contrary to the interests of some other group then it's reasonable to expect disagreement.

You liberals need to understand that freedom from opposition isn't freedom at all, it's tyranny.

What about representing the nation as a whole?
 
I have been saying for several years that if the GOP doesn't make some major changes in the way that it operates and attract more minority voters who will be the majority of the voters in the USA in about thirty years it will end up being reduced to a minor regional party with no national power.

Not my problem.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

Not mine either as in 30 years I will no longer be walking this earth. But it would be nice if my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren were living under a nation of laws instead of living under the threat of a direct majority rule where anything goes with 50% plus one vote.It would be nice if checks and balance was still in place. But I, myself will not have to worry about it.
 
What about representing the nation as a whole?

The nation is made up of millions of people with millions of different ideas, needs, desires, etc. There is no "one size fits all" solution.
 
You are being facetious, right?
Tell me more about Ambassador Bolton?




John Bolton is an excellent example of when blocking someone is the right thing to do.

Bolton is a Neo-con loser and doesn't have a diplomatic bone in his body. He's a liar and a spinner and there is no place in the U.S. Government for him.
 
If I'm not mistaken, Senator Graham has indicated he would put a hold on any Obama nominee in committee until such time as the administration releases to congress the transcripts of the FBI interviews of the Benghazi survivors and allows congress to interview them as well. To date, the administration has objected, likely fearing the truth on the ground blows up their storyline.

Ah. So he didn't "vow" them. He said he would put a hold on any Obama nominee until we find out the hidden particulars of a successful terrorist attack in which a U.S. Ambassador was targeted and killed.
 
Depends on their individual constituencies. Some want congress to stop passing new law and busy themselves fixing the stuff already on the books.
Ummm... That would be governing
As opposed to anarchy.
 
The 60 vote threshold has been modified many times in the past.

True, the last time I think was in the 1960's without having to look it up. It was lowered from 67 to 60 for cloture. But it has never been lowered to a simple majority. Now if the Republicans win back the senate in 2014, they can change it back by simple majority vote. But why would they? It only takes a simple majority to defeat any nominee or legislation as it is now.

I find this very interesting to be arguing procedure on this. I have always felt a president, any president ought to be able to appoint who he wishes. But I also like the confirmation process and I think if we had two different senate leaders beside Reid and McConnell that this problem, this precedence would have never come up. Their problem, both of them is that both work on this my way or the highway approach. This would have never happened or would have been necessary is the leaders were Mitchell and Dole or even Daschle and Lott. But even so, the cat is out of the bag, the precedence set. So now we shall see how this is used in the future on all nominees and legislation.
 
There is a difference between "many times" and EVERYTIME.

The Republicans don't do it every time either any more than your idiotic first claim that the Democrats never do it.

You told a lie, you got caught. Learn from it.
 
Back
Top Bottom