As a response to a financial disaster and overall disgust of the general public
With public mandate.
This wasn’t some disasterous plea deal. This was something that a majority of the members of congress decided on, and as far as I can tell, something a lot of the American public is quite happy about. And yet, the republican minority in the Senate, which should have no right whatsoever to say “no, this agency cannot exist” is able to essentially nullify its existence by demanding a 60% majority. And look closely; it’s not about the candidate. They’re going to object to any candidate leading that department, just so that the department can’t get anything done.
Look, I don’t care how bad this Bureau is. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. The democrats should not need a 60% majority to create an appointee. The Republicans know that they don’t have the will of the people backing them on this issue, they’re not using the correct channels, but they’re doing it anyways, because the will of the people be damned, banks pay the bills.
I’m sorry, but this whole situation is sickening. The Filibuster is broken in half in the political arena, and abusing it has become an incredibly popular tool in order to essentially demand that the other side has a massive supermajority to be able to do anything. We saw this with health care reform, we saw this with the supreme court, and now we’re seeing it here.
Well, as the New York Times said back in 1995, the filibuster is derailing Clinton’s agenda, and needs to be curtailed.
Of course, they said in 2005 that the filibuster’s existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes when Senate Democrats were using it against Bush’s agenda.
And they said just last month we should end the filibuster.
So let’s just cut to the chase. I don’t wish to put words in the OP’s mouth, but it seems clear that the actual rule favored by the New York Times is: When the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the Senate shall have a filibuster rule; when the Democrats have the majority, no filibuster rule should exist.
I wonder if there’s a side-by-side list of the things filibustered under Bush and the things filibustered under Clinton and Obama. :rolleyes: Because I don’t think there’s any reasonable comparison.
But what’s more, you have to agree that this is an unreasonable abuse of their power. The agency has, by popular demand, been given the right to exist. A minority group from within the government should not have the authority to shut it down like this. It’s simply a power they aren’t supposed to have.
I must admit to some confusion about how a potential charge of hypocrisy against the New York Times answers the OP, who neither mentioned nor linked to them.
I’ve noticed that the left has no scruples about running roughshod over the majority whenever they want something the majority doesn’t want. They just declare whatever they want to be a right, and use that as an excuse to override the principle of majority rule. I trust you’ll pardon me if I just don’t care.
And anyway, I’m skeptical that there was overwhelming popular support for it, anyway. Probably most folks never even heard of it.
Ah, the “neener neener, the Democrats did it too” defense.
Tell me, in this particular case cited by the OP, should the Republicans be allowed to shut down the agency using this particular method? Not CAN they, but SHOULD they? Is this an appropriate use of the rules.
Don’t tell me who did what sometime in the past. Answer the question for THIS particular case.
As the Dems have repeatedly used the filibuster themselves, and it is very plain that they have no problem with nullifying majority rule when it suits they’re political convenience, there is no need to take them seriously when they appeal to the principle of majority rule to invalidate a Republican filibuster. That applies in this case.
And of course it doesn’t matter at all how often that filibuster is used? I don’t think so. There are roughly twice as many GOP filibusters as there were Democrat filibusters. When a process that was intended to be the exception suddenly becomes the default, the process is not working.
…and also propose a “Republicans/Conservatives/Religious/Tea Partiers are teh evil and want to destroy/rape/kill/lynch/steal/evict from the country/disenfranchise all brown skinned /African American/poor/LGBT/atheistic people”
With a little effort, we can reduce this board to a series of smillies and fit the archiving of its sum to one 3.5 floppy disk.
This is an exceptionally egregious abuse of the filibuster, however. Republicans are not objecting to Cordray’s qualifications, or his ethics, or any other issue related to his fitness for public service. Republicans are trying to accomplish through the filibuster what they could not accomplish through legislation, which is to limit regulation of the financial industry. For that reason alone I think there should be different rules for Republicans than there are for Democrats.
The GOP has demonstrated they lack the maturity to govern, so they should be sanctioned when ever possible and by what ever means necessary. It is time for Obama to start punishing districts that elect Republicans who will not negotiate in good faith; he needs to get all LBJ on their asses. Threaten their local appropriations, take whatever executive actions are availble to him to make life difficult in Republican districts. Veto military procurement programs, water projects, and other spending in red districts. Until it is painful to be a conservative, they will continue to act like children.
The GOP has abused the filibuster to a far greater degree in terms of number of incidents and sheer obstreperousness than the Democrats have, especially in terms of things like blocking appointments, many of which are essentially non-partisan. The Democrats also have never used to filibuster for the baldly stated purpose of making the president look bad, blocking anything and everything including bills and resolutions co-sponsored by members of their own party. The GOP have.
Which applies in the case in which someone’s rights are being infringed. Newsflash: this is not applicable to every political decision. Or do you think that the legality of the jewish religion is “Tyranny of the majority” against the Nazis in the country?
I’m going to assume you mean the supreme court… You mean when it comes to laws that are, according to the constitution, fucking illegal? Also, I kinda wanna look up the political affiliations of the individual judges…