• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Senate changes filibuster FINALLY

Spot the Wonder said:
DPCC_Cloture-Votes-01.png
Click to expand...

So there was a big bump for Clinton, and then Democrats responded with a comparable bump for Bush? The Democrats will definitely do the same for the next Republican president if they have the power to do so.

Far too often political parties are protective of certain powers because they want those powers to be available to them in the future, IMO.
 
Ginsburg should step down asap. There's no telling what kind of hurdles will be in place for Supreme Court confirmation in 2015.
 
DeaconSig said:
Being able to hold up the confirmation of judges and executive branch appointments is a considerable weapon? Really?
Click to expand...

Much like my kids' tantrums are a weapon.
 
DeacMan said:
225 years down the drain. Both parties have long threatened this. Reid was whirling on about the importance of filibusters in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot. Don't think this is a wise move at all. It positions us for judges with a much wider range of viewpoints than we'd otherwise get. If you think things are screwy now just wait until every judge is either Scalia or or his leftist counterpart. And once you really fuck up the judiciary branch then you are really screwed.
Click to expand...

You do of course realize that the filibuster was never meant to be used to counter appointments of the president by the founding fathers right?
 
DeaconSig said:
Being able to hold up the confirmation of judges and executive branch appointments is a considerable weapon? Really?
Click to expand...

What would you call it? Why did we have filibusters in the first place if not to check the majority? I am not arguing for or against it but the reason it was in place was to be used to check the majority. If weapon is not the preferred nomenclature for this action then please advise us with a better word.
 
I would be more in favor of filibusters if the minority party actually had to, you know, filibuster.
 
Wrangor said:
What would you call it? Why did we have filibusters in the first place if not to check the majority? I am not arguing for or against it but the reason it was in place was to be used to check the majority. If weapon is not the preferred nomenclature for this action then please advise us with a better word.
Click to expand...

It was NEVER used the way is has been by McConnell. But you guys won't discuss that.

It's one thing to use filibusters and cloture votes once or twice a year as has been done in the past. It was done three times in one week.

Why Wrangor, DeacMan and others can't be honest enough to admit the GOP caused this problem themselves by changing the use of the filibuster and cloture is quite clear.

If the projections were allowed to play, GOP obstruction of Obama would be 220 % of the TEN previous POTUS COMBINED.

the Dems did this to Nixon ZERO times.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You do of course realize that the filibuster was never meant to be used to counter appointments of the president by the founding fathers right?
Click to expand...

But it's in the Constitution...oh wait, it isn't.
 
Isn't DeacMan a lawyer? And he doesn't understand where the filibuster comes from? Did he just sleep through ConLaw?
 
Wrangor said:
What would you call it? Why did we have filibusters in the first place if not to check the majority? I am not arguing for or against it but the reason it was in place was to be used to check the majority. If weapon is not the preferred nomenclature for this action then please advise us with a better word.
Click to expand...

I would call holdiing up nominations when you are given the power to advise and consent to be acting like a little bitch, instead of conducting the business of the Senate.

You realize the filibuster still exists, right?
 
I will say it again, the nominee still has to go through hearings and get a vote, don't tell me this is anything( filibusterring a nominee) more that political grandstanding by anybody. I do not think anybody should regret this decision. Even the repubs on here have got to agree that it will make things easier should they ever get in power again.
 
Republicans don't want the executive branch to function at full capacity under Democrats. This is how they did it.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
I will say it again, the nominee still has to go through hearings and get a vote, don't tell me this is anything( filibusterring a nominee) more that political grandstanding by anybody. I do not think anybody should regret this decision. Even the repubs on here have got to agree that it will make things easier should they ever get in power again.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just makes it easier for the party in power. Not a game changer either way.
 
PhDeac said:
Republicans don't want the executive branch to function at full capacity under Democrats. This is how they did it.
Click to expand...

The ironic part is the executive branch is doing a fine job of tripping over itself all by its lonesome. It doesn't need the Republicans help.
 
Seems to me that more than a mere 50% +1 should be required on judicial nominations. Lifetime appointments need some consensus IMO.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
The ironic part is the executive branch is doing a fine job of tripping over itself all by its lonesome. It doesn't need the Republicans help.
Click to expand...

That's not ironic. We haven't seen what a full executive branch could do.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
I will say it again, the nominee still has to go through hearings and get a vote, don't tell me this is anything( filibusterring a nominee) more that political grandstanding by anybody. I do not think anybody should regret this decision. Even the repubs on here have got to agree that it will make things easier should they ever get in power again.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we keep getting told that the pubs are finished.
 
PhDeac said:
That's not ironic. We haven't seen what a full executive branch could do.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The IRS problems, Benghazi, ACA, Snowden, etc.....these are all because the House of Representatives keep getting in Obamas way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top