Very true, and good point in context.
Garland was nominated on March 14, almost a full year before the end of Obama’s term. And I don’t think the fact that the SC is “not fully staffed” really signifies, since the reason it’s not staffed is that the Senate refused to consider any Obama nominee.
If 10 months is okay, how about 20? 30? 40? Where’s the dividing line between 10 and 48?
I am down for killing the filibuster.
For 8 years, the democrats were told that they had all the control over the govt at the beginning of Obama’s term.
This wasn’t really the case, as there were only a few months when the senate was filibuster proof, and even then required consent of not just the “blue dogs”, but independants like lieberman and sanders as well. So, the democrats didn’t really get everything they wanted, and everything got watered down in order to try to reach the new 60 vote requirement.
In a few years, if the democrats block republican legislation and nominees using the filibuster, the republicans can rightfully use the same excuse that their ideas were not allowed to come to their full fruition under such a system. Just as I think the ACA would have been significantly better if it did not require 60 votes to pass, and did not require 60 votes to make any changes or amendments once it was passed (and kennedy was dead, ending the supermajority.), I think republican legislation will show its merits better without democratic interference.
If their ideas work out, great. I didn’t think that they would, but I will happier to be wrong than to live in a country where they don’t.
If their ideas don’t work out, well that sucks, because that means that the country suffers for it, but at least they will not have anyone to blame but their own failed policies.
If it is obvious enough for the voters to see the effect of the different policies, then they will be better able to make a judgement as to which direction the country should take.
Personally, I would prefer that the country not suffer in order to prove the unproveable.
Unfortunately, I do not know that we have a choice. I thknk there will be quite a bit of suffering from the policies that the republicans are putting into place, economically, socially, and legally speaking.
Most likely, it will be the people who voted for trump and the R’s who will experience the most suffering on the economic front, though it will be minorities who will likely experience the legal and social consequences of rolling back civil rights.
So, if we are going to suffer, might as well try to prove a point at the same time. If the democrats are effectively shut out of govt policy making, then even the most stubborn of republican supporters will be forced to admit that their environment is the one that is desired by conservative ideals.
I agree. We are essentially arguing for a permanent shutdown of the government by whichever party is in the minority. Its better, imo , to let the majority have their way and make them pay for their mistakes in future elections.
I generally agree, although there are strong consequentialist reasons to disagree (depending on how harmful changes seem likely to be - I would, for instance, support filibustering repeal without meaningful replacement of the ACA. Yes, I realize there is groundwork laid for a simple-majority-only repeal through budgetary reconciliation, but that’s an example where my distaste for the filibuster on principle is overruled by the consequences of legislative action).
I’ll also point out that this position leads us closer to parliamentary government, where the majority party governs and the opposition party opposes. (Obviously, we have the wrinkle of electing our executive separate from the legislature.)
It’s going to be interesting to see how much of the more extreme/unpopular elements of the GOP agenda our new president and congress will pursue, and what the effects of their decisions will be.
I’d prefer the filibuster to be eliminated right from the get go. None of this dancing around saying if you do this, then we’ll do this BS.
My vote is to keep the filibuster for extreme cases.
And if I get outvoted on this, I may just filibuster this thread …
Clearly, it’s at 42.
But for some reason, I don’t think the Democrats are very good at doing what the Republicans did. It could be that they are just better people, more responsible and adult about the thing, but there seems to be a difference.
And if the Democrats hold out until the next election, and the next president is a Democrat, guess what the Republicans will do? And they ARE good at it.
Exactly. The Republicans are so good at it that Obama couldn’t get a single SC nominee confirmed.
Uh, actually, on second thought, never mind …
They can’t do what the Republicans did (refuse to schedule a hearing) because they’re the minority party and they don’t set the schedule.
The closest they can get is to filibuster the nominee after the hearing, which they seem to be contemplating.
If I were to write the history of the next few years of the filibuster, it would be eliminated at this time, and then reintroduced, with a more permanent basis (so no easy rule changes to get rid of or alter it) as a modified standing filibuster.
If someone wants to filibuster a bill, they can go into a room with a C-Span camera, and explain why they are filibustering that bill. If others want to join in, they can stay in that room as well. Once the filibustering has started though, no one can enter after that. Leave at any time.
Senators filibustering will count towards a quorum for conducting senate business, but cannot vote on bills that come to the floor while they are filibustering.
As long as there is a senator in that room who is conscious, the bill that they are filibustering cannot go to the floor without closure, and bump that back up to 67.
Go ahead and put in a half dozen or more rooms outfitted like this in the capitol.
Now, if a senator feels very strongly about a bill, they can filibuster it, preventing it from being easily passed, and explain why to the american people at the same time. If in that time, enough people have called their senator to tell them not to vote for a bill, then it will not pass. If the senator gives up, then the bill can go to the floor, and be voted on normally.
Not saying that they will take my suggestion, just saying, I think that’s a better way than what we currently have.
You missed the point. The point was brinksmanship, and who plays the game better.
I meant given an equal opportunity-- that is, if they did control the Senate. Surely they will again at some point.
The Senate advised (literally) for Garland to become the new Justice, and Obama nominated him. Any result other than Garland taking that seat spits in the face of the Constitution. The Democrats should not spit in the face of the Constitution.
It’s already this bad, or it will be soon. Best if the Democrats played the game in the real world instead of fantasy land.
I understood your point. And my response addressed it.
If the Republicans are able and willing to do what you advocated the Democrats should do if they were good at it, then the Republicans might have done just that when they had the opportunity. But they had the opportunity twice and passed both times. So either they weren’t as willing or weren’t as able. as you suggest
[Though you could argue that the Republicans had smaller minorities.]
I think the Republicans care more about the filibuster than the Democrats, which is another reason for the Democrats to push back as hard as possible against Trump’s nominees.
“The Senate” or “a Senator”?
The election was eight months after. If Hillary had won there would have been no point to further delay.
My point was the Democrats (hypothetically) preferring that it stay understaffed for forty-eight months (or more?) rather than accept a Trump appointee.