• 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

j-mac said:
Whatever, just throw the whole thing in the trash right? Isn't that what revisionist liberals like you think anyway.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the US Constitution requires a supermajority for the Senate to approve appointees, or to pass legislation.
 
Visbek said:
Nothing in the US Constitution requires a supermajority for the Senate to approve appointees, or to pass legislation.
Click to expand...
This is very true. The constitution allows them to create their own rules of debate. The filibuster is nothing more than a long standing rule that had become tradition. That said...

It has been highly modified. It used to be that a person must be speaking. Someone must always be speaking during the filibuster. They removed that because they are fat lazy slobs, and went to the supermajority only.
 
jmotivator said:
They haven't "filibustered", again, learn what the term means.
Click to expand...

Actually 79nominees were actually filibustered under Obama more than all previous presidents using "actual filibusters".
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/21/fact-checking-filibuster/

• On social media, Reid promoted a graphic showing filibusters are on the rise during the Obama administration. "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents." We found Reid mischaracterized the filibusters -- he was counting cloture votes, not individual nominees. After PolitiFact asked about the discrepancy, his office changed the graphic. By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147. Reid’s point is actually a bit stronger using these these revised numbers. We rated the statement Mostly True.
Click to expand...

I find it weird that Conservatives used Cloture as filibusters under Bush but now it no longer is a good gauge of obstructionism. Of course most of the fools they write for seem to only paid attention since 2008.

What difference would that be, exactly?
Click to expand...

It's actually pretty common practice...right before a President leaves he tries to jam through tons of appointments. The minority party that is hoping to gain the presidency blocks the nominations. If you look at a graph of nominations every President has a spike in the last year before he leaves office/re-elected. Which is why selecting the year before the end of Bush's first term is cherry picking the year where the majority of filibusters took place....like every President before him.

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.
Click to expand...

Sure....in Bush's second term the majority party just blocked all confirmations Bush's last year. you notice they don't compare it to 2002 though right? Right after he was re-elected to office and still had pretty much a full term as President...I wonder why they used his last year of his first term...mhmmmm. Also weird they don't compare all 8 of Bush's years to all 8 of Obama's.

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.
Click to expand...

I call it cherry picking because it is. It uses a time frame where filibusters are historically used a lot more than normal (last year in the term of a President) compared to Obama's first year after getting elected. If you don't understand how that's cherry picking....I dunno how to explain it better.
 
Visbek said:
Nothing in the US Constitution requires a supermajority for the Senate to approve appointees, or to pass legislation.
Click to expand...

So you are against minority rights in the Senate? Noted.
 
j-mac said:
So you are against minority rights in the Senate? Noted.
Click to expand...
This is not about "minority rights in the Senate."

It's about the simple fact that the Constitution does not stipulate that a supermajority is required to approve a presidential nomination.

It's about ending the abuse of rules that obstruct the legislative, executive and judiciary branches from doing their jobs. (I.e. if filibusters were still used infrequently, there would be little reason to end the practice.)

There is nothing about this rule change that violates either the specific words or the intent of the Constitution.
 
Visbek said:
This is not about "minority rights in the Senate."

It's about the simple fact that the Constitution does not stipulate that a supermajority is required to approve a presidential nomination.

It's about ending the abuse of rules that obstruct the legislative, executive and judiciary branches from doing their jobs. (I.e. if filibusters were still used infrequently, there would be little reason to end the practice.)

There is nothing about this rule change that violates either the specific words or the intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Was that your point of view when the democrats blocked so many of Bush's nominees?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Was that your point of view when the democrats blocked so many of Bush's nominees?
Click to expand...
I really don't recall. It was 8 years ago, and not a particularly prominent episode.

I've already said though, in this very thread, that if this rule change prevents Democrats from obstructing government at any time in the future, then bring it on. The President is empowered to make appointments; the job of the Senate is to advise and consent, not pour sugar in the gas tank. It doesn't matter which party is in the minority, the decisions in the Senate are not supposed to require a supermajority.

And again: Part of living in a nation with an elected government is that you don't always get your way. I've accepted that; have you?
 
Just checking for hypocrisy.
 
jonny5 said:
Nothing I said had to do anything with the filibuster.
Click to expand...

Actually, your comment was in direct response to Mithros' commentary concerning the use of the filibuster. You simply support the need to retain it for the minority in the Senate. Towit, I reiterate, the filibuster has not been removed for normal order.

Mithros said:
I think it's safe to say that the current filibuster is effectively dead. But I don't think you can lay that on Reid for better or worse.

I like the filibuster, and think that minority rights are an important part of the Senate. But the filibuster has been broken.

The bottom line is that the minority party had become obstructionist just to be obstructionist. How can anyone rationally defend holding up a nominee for almost two years; especially when that nominee received 90+ confirmation votes with zero objections? Neither party is going to get a super-majority any time soon. The only way for the senate to function moving forward was for something to happen.

IMO, the senate needs to settle on a nuclear proof filibuster that is *MUCH* harder to use. Bring back the mandatory speaking part of the filibuster. If you want to stop the senate from functioning, you should have to get up and tell us why.
Click to expand...

jonny5 said:
You defend it by saying the majority got 99% of they want. What has the minority gotten? They theoretically represent 45% of the country, but because the majority represents 55%, the only things that get done is what 55% want? What about the rest of us? And that's why the minority has to use whatever leverage they have.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Visbek said:
This is not about "minority rights in the Senate."

It's about the simple fact that the Constitution does not stipulate that a supermajority is required to approve a presidential nomination.

It's about ending the abuse of rules that obstruct the legislative, executive and judiciary branches from doing their jobs. (I.e. if filibusters were still used infrequently, there would be little reason to end the practice.)

There is nothing about this rule change that violates either the specific words or the intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well, just keep that sentiment when repubs gain the Senate...I am sure you will.
 
iliveonramen said:
Actually 79nominees were actually filibustered under Obama more than all previous presidents using "actual filibusters".
PolitiFact | Flip-flopping on the filibuster
Click to expand...

This is false, regardless of how badly Politifact defines a "filibuster". There very well may have been 79 CLOTURE VOTES on Nominees, but that isn't the same thing as a Filibuster. Reid can call a cloture vote whenever he wants, but unless the cloture is shot down there was no filibuster. Filibusters are failed cloture votes, not cloture votes. Successful cloture votes are not filibusters and using cloture votes as a measure of minority party opposition either a sign of stupidity of intellectual dishonesty.

To date on Obama nominees, between 111th, 112th and 113th Senates, there have been a total of 11 failed cloture votes on Presidential nominees. As I pointed out earlier, in the 108th senate alone, with Harry Reid as the minority leader, there were 16 failed cloture votes.

The number you and Politifact keep sighting is driven entirely by Harry Reid's personal whims. When you count ACTUAL Filibusters by Republicans is pales in comparison to Reid and the Democrats.


I find it weird that Conservatives used Cloture as filibusters under Bush but now it no longer is a good gauge of obstructionism. Of course most of the fools they write for seem to only paid attention since 2008.
Click to expand...

A cloture vote can be called by either party at any time, and is often called simply to bypass floor debate on a vote where there is unanimous consent anyway. A plurality of cloture votes under Reid on matter of judicial nominees have been precisely that, unanimous consent by all parties to skip right to the floor vote. A filibuster is when the minority uses that cloture vote as a way of delaying the end of floor debate indefinitely. The Republicans have done that 11 times in 5 years.

The study that Reid keeps pointing to doesn't prove what Reid thinks it does. Again, only the 103rd Senate, 108th Senate and 111-113th in that time period had a minority party that was in opposition to the standing President, so only in those 5 Senates is cloture even a logical maneuver (Democrat minority wouldn't filibuster Clinton, Republican minority wouldn't filibuster Bush), and in those 5 Senates Harry Reid in the 108th is the winner in a walk with 79% filibuster rate (by that study). In 111th through 113th the total number has skyrocketed while the rate has remained within historic norms.

Not that the study also shows a huge upswing in Withdrawals of cloture in 112th, you can see them all here (most happened on March 12th), every single one of those 20 withdrawals or vitiated were because there was no opposition and the nominee was confirmed, often with 80+ votes to confirm.

So no, Politifact isn't correct here. There is no validity to calling a cloture vote a filibuster of a minority attempt to block a nominee when the minority voted in favor of cloture. A 75-15 vote to end debate isn't a minority attempt at blocking a nominee no matter how much you and Harry Reid and Politifact want to make it so.



It's actually pretty common practice...right before a President leaves he tries to jam through tons of appointments. The minority party that is hoping to gain the presidency blocks the nominations. If you look at a graph of nominations every President has a spike in the last year before he leaves office/re-elected. Which is why selecting the year before the end of Bush's first term is cherry picking the year where the majority of filibusters took place....like every President before him.
Click to expand...

Actually no, you are just making crap up because it sounds like it supports your point. Of the 261 District court appointments Bush made in his 8 years 22 happened in 2004 leading up to the election. So much for your election year court packing theory...



Sure....in Bush's second term the majority party just blocked all confirmations Bush's last year. you notice they don't compare it to 2002 though right? Right after he was re-elected to office and still had pretty much a full term as President...I wonder why they used his last year of his first term...mhmmmm. Also weird they don't compare all 8 of Bush's years to all 8 of Obama's.
Click to expand...

Nope, the majority of his appointments in his first term came in 2003, not 2004. Right in the middle of his first term. Of the 302 total Judicial Nominees by Bush in his 8 years only 18 were made in 2008. Again, so much for your theory.



I call it cherry picking because it is. It uses a time frame where filibusters are historically used a lot more than normal (last year in the term of a President) compared to Obama's first year after getting elected. If you don't understand how that's cherry picking....I dunno how to explain it better.
Click to expand...


It isn't cherry picking. There is only one Senate where the President was Republican and the minority was Democrat, so that was the only Senate where Reid was the Minority leader with any reason to filibuster... and he did, on 79% of all cloture votes. The most the Republicans have had in their three Senates as minority to a Democratic President is 15%, by Harry Reid's own "evidence".

To get to the number that you, Reid and Politifact throw around you have to start counting all cloture votes as filibusters (pro-tip: they have different names for a reason) when the vast majority were not filibusters at all. In other words your argument is either based on ignorance or a desire to bend the truth.
 
iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...

It would operate like it did when it was first formed by unanimity. It would only do the things that everyone agreed to (or at least 3/4 of members), and everything else would be left for the people to do themselves. The only reason hard situations divide us is because we are forced to live with people with who we are fundamentally opposed, and because decisions can be made with only a bare majority, meaning 49% of the people are always upset. That's no way to live.
 
iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Appointees who have to be approved by congress, which means congress sets the agenda. The President enforces congresses agenda, he does not set it. The constitution does not give him the power to set it.
 
Visbek said:
This is not about "minority rights in the Senate."

It's about the simple fact that the Constitution does not stipulate that a supermajority is required to approve a presidential nomination.

It's about ending the abuse of rules that obstruct the legislative, executive and judiciary branches from doing their jobs. (I.e. if filibusters were still used infrequently, there would be little reason to end the practice.)

There is nothing about this rule change that violates either the specific words or the intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Obstruction is necessary when the majority tyrannizes the minority. Its what led to revolution and civil war. Its the only tool left to make sure that the minority has influence.
 
Objective Voice said:
Actually, your comment was in direct response to Mithros' commentary concerning the use of the filibuster. You simply support the need to retain it for the minority in the Senate. Towit, I reiterate, the filibuster has not been removed for normal order.
Click to expand...

Actually my comments was in direct response to only a part of his commentary.

How can anyone rationally defend holding up a nominee for almost two years?
Click to expand...

Rejecting cloture is only one way, and my comment was in the broader scope of supporting obstruction in the face of 51% tyranny. I don't care whether there is a filibuster or not. I care that the minority has a say.
 
jonny5 said:
Rejecting cloture is only one way, and my comment was in the broader scope of supporting obstruction in the face of 51% tyranny. I don't care whether there is a filibuster or not. I care that the minority has a say.
Click to expand...

Here is, what I think is an excellent summation by Michael Doran of the Brookings Institution (certainly no conservative).....

"On the nuclear question specifically, I don't see this as stage one. In my view, there will never be a final agreement. What the administration just initiated was, rather, a long and expensive process by which the West pays Iran to refrain from going nuclear. We are, in essence, paying Ayatollah Khamenei to negotiate with us. We just bought six months. What was the price?
We shredded the six United Nations Security Council resolutions that ordered the Islamic Republic to abandon all enrichment and reprocessing activities. We exposed fractures in the coalition against Iran. And we started building a global economic lobby that is dedicated to eroding the sanctions that we have generated through a decade of hard, very hard, diplomatic work.
That's the price that we can see clearly before our eyes. But I also wonder whether there were hidden costs -- in the form of quiet commitments to Iran by third parties. I assume that the Iranians demanded economic compensation for every concession that they made. Will all of the promised payments appear in the text of the agreement? Did parties less constrained than our president by US congressional oversight also offer up sweeteners on the margins? At this point we do not know whether there is, in effect, a secret annex to the deal. Only time will tell.
But a hidden cost that is more easily verified is the free hand that the United States is now giving to Iran throughout the region. This is the price that troubles me most.
That pretty much nails it. We are abandoning the region while Iran's hegemonistic designs expand. And it's even worse than that:
The nuclear deal will further subject the Arab world to the tender mercies of the Revolutionary Guards. Iran will now have more money -- our money -- to channel to proxies such as Hezbollah. Washington cannot expose the mailed fist of the Qods Force without endangering the nuclear rapprochement, so it has a positive incentive to ignore all Iranian subversion and intimidation in the region.
Whether he realizes it, Obama has now announced that the United States cannot be relied upon to stand up to Iran. Therefore, Israel and our Arab allies will be forced to live by their wits. Some actors, like the Saudis, will prosecute their proxy war with Iran with renewed vehemence. Others will simply hedge. They will make a beeline to Tehran, just as many regional actors began showing up in Moscow after the Syrian chemical weapons deal. American influence will further deteriorate.
That, in sum, is the true price that we just paid for six months of seeming quiet on the nuclear front. It is price in prestige, which most Americans will not notice. It is also a price in blood. But it is not our blood, so Americans will also fail to make the connection between the violence and the nuclear deal. It is important to note, however, that this is just the initial price. Six months from now, when the interim agreement expires, another payment to Ayatollah Khamenei will come due. If Obama doesn't pony up, he will have to admit then that he cut a bad deal now. So he we will indeed pay -- through the nose.
Iran is already celebrating what they see as confirmation of their right to enrich uranium. Kerry says that isn't true. In six months, who do you think is going to be proved right?

Blog: 'The Hidden Cost of the Iranian Nuclear Deal'
 
jonny5 said:
Actually my comments was in direct response to only a part of his commentary.



Rejecting cloture is only one way, and my comment was in the broader scope of supporting obstruction in the face of 51% tyranny. I don't care whether there is a filibuster or not. I care that the minority has a say.
Click to expand...

Never fear. The minority party will still have a voice in the Senate. People listen to too much Conservative talk radio and take everything said there on blind faith. Do yourself a favor: Go to Senate.gov, click on the "Rules" link and learn for yourself whether cloture or the filibuster will limit normal order in the Senate. I bet what you'll find is that the only thing that's changed is how presidential nominations short of nominations to the SC are handled.

The minority party in the Senate will still get to have their say.
 
Objective Voice said:
Never fear. The minority party will still have a voice in the Senate. People listen to too much Conservative talk radio and take everything said there on blind faith. Do yourself a favor: Go to Senate.gov, click on the "Rules" link and learn for yourself whether cloture or the filibuster will limit normal order in the Senate. I bet what you'll find is that the only thing that's changed is how presidential nominations short of nominations to the SC are handled.

The minority party in the Senate will still get to have their say.
Click to expand...

When I said voice, I mean they have a hand in crafting legislation, in approving nominations, in deciding the priorities of congress. Senate Republicans represent 31 different states, yet they have little representation in policies of the country. And the same goes for Democrats in the House.
 
j-mac said:
Here is, what I think is an excellent summation by Michael Doran of the Brookings Institution (certainly no conservative).....
Click to expand...
Uh... Wrong "nuclear option." This thread is about removing some of the filibuster rules, not Iran developing nukes. ;)
 
jonny5 said:
When I said voice, I mean they have a hand in crafting legislation, in approving nominations, in deciding the priorities of congress. Senate Republicans represent 31 different states, yet they have little representation in policies of the country. And the same goes for Democrats in the House.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you meant and my position on the matter is unchanged. The minority party in the Senate will still have a voice. They will continue to have a stake in shaping laws that will ultimately govern this nation. Their voices will continue to be heard. They will still get a vote through normal order same as always.

Nonetheless, my comment about "stop listening to Conservative talk radio" and taking what they say as the "be-all/end-all" was directed at yourself and all others who take what they have to say as gospel. (I hold the same view for those who listen exclusively to liberal talk radio as well.) Because all you're hearing is "their" slant :)spin:) on the storyline which in all likelihood is only half the story (if that!). You really want to know the truth of the matter? Go figure it out yourself! Not saying you can't discover a hint of truism in what these so-called "entertainment authorities" have to say, but if you really want to discern fact from fiction, go do your own homework and think for yourself!

And that's my :twocents: worth...climbing down off my :soap ...:rantoff:
 
Objective Voice said:
I know exactly what you meant and my position on the matter is unchanged. The minority party in the Senate will still have a voice. They will continue to have a stake in shaping laws that will ultimately govern this nation. Their voices will continue to be heard. They will still get a vote through normal order same as always.

Nonetheless, my comment about "stop listening to Conservative talk radio" and taking what they say as the "be-all/end-all" was directed at yourself and all others who take what they have to say as gospel. (I hold the same view for those who listen exclusively to liberal talk radio as well.) Because all you're hearing is "their" slant (n:) on the storyline which in all likelihood is only half the story (if that!). You really want to know the truth of the matter? Go figure it out yourself! Not saying you can't discover a hint of truism in what these so-called "entertainment authorities" have to say, but if you really want to discern fact from fiction, go do your own homework and think for yourself!

And that's my :nts: worth...climbing down off my :
Click to expand...

But they don't have a voice. So how can they still have one? They will still get to lose every vote? :shoot:werd:2wave::2razz:
 
For example, what legislation have the democrats allowed on the floor that Republicans support, who have proposed over 2000 bills? Here is what the Senate has considered this year.

Hurricane Sandy Funding
Violence Against Women Act
Raising the Debt Limit
Sequester Replacement
Continuing Funding Resolution
Budget
Gun Control
Internet Sales Tax
Infrastructure Spending
Farm Bill
Student Loan Interest Rate
Immigration Reform
HUD funding

Nothing in there is Republican priorities, even though they represent 31 states and 100 million citizens, theoretically.
 
Visbek said:
Uh... Wrong "nuclear option." This thread is about removing some of the filibuster rules, not Iran developing nukes. ;)
Click to expand...


Ooops...Wrong thread....:3oops::lamo

Carry on! :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom