When the outcome of the vote is not governed by which position gets the most votes.
A look at the last group who did that is interesting - by my count only 6 of them are still in the Senate. If there was another Gang of However Many then Reid couldn’t have invoked the nuclear option, since there wouldn’t have been the votes for it.
I doubt there’d be any market for Republicans to join such a group right now anyway. Agreeing to buck your caucus to approve President Obama’s judicial nominees is a great way to get knocked off by a Tea Party primary challenger. If any one thing is to blame for this situation, I’d name the current Republican primary dynamic. Their voters really want them to obstruct Obama at every turn, whether it makes strategic sense or not. I disagree with that as an objective, but I can’t really argue that it’s what they’re being elected to do. In this case maximalist obstruction led to the loss of a lot of leverage.
Believe it or not, the Constitution does NOT say that you need a 3/5 majority to pass legislation through the Senate. Saying that voting to remove the filibuster is unconstitutional betrays an abysmal ignorance of exactly how this nation is governed.
I recall back in 2005, the Pubs were calling filibuster-abolition-or-rule-change “the Constitutional Option.” Now it’s back to “the Nuclear Option.”
Spiteful Republicans are already using other tactics to obstruct nominations:
Seriously? “Spiteful”? You use a “nuclear option” and then call the opposition “spiteful”? That’s hilarious.
If Republicans have an ounce of self-respect they will use every trick in the book to frustrate the confirmations.
LOL- they already are! That’s why this happened!
You ain’t seen nothing yet, I suspect.
So your major problem here is that Republicans are in the minority and are being treated like it? Your major source of pique here is that Republicans aren’t going to be able to get their way as if they actually WERE the majority? Is it immoral or unamerican to not govern at all times as if the Republicans actually were the majority despite the situation as it stands?
Terr, if the Republicans feel so strongly about the minority having a say over the majority will they change their behavior in the House? If not, why not?
The House is not the Senate. I know you (plural) don’t see the sense in having bicameral legislature, but that’s what we have.
I certainly hope not. Look for Democrats to keep trolliing Republicans in the House and Senate so they will continue to act like dicks right up to the 2014 elections.
The Senators who are the majority in the Senate represent MORE of the country (both from a strict count of States and from a population standpoint) than the majority in the House, so why does the Senate minority there get a special say?
That’s a honest question. I’d really like to hear the reasoning AND I insist that you admit that when the situation is reversed (if ever) that it’ll be perfectly okay for a Democratic minority in the Senate to lock out the vast majority of a GOP President’s appointments regardless of the actual qualification of the candidate. Or just admit that this is all partisan bullshit and you actually hate democracy when it doesn’t go your way.
It’s hardly nuclear. The nuclear option was to use the filibuster every time something non-trivial came up.
If anything, the Dems have diffused the bombs that the GOP have been lobbing.
And the Dems don’t want to compromise. The attitude is that since they are in the majority that the minority is somehow required to move to their position as much as the Dems think they should.
If I have a car you want to buy. And I say I want $10,000 (and the car is worth closer to $6,000), you just say no. But if we both want to make a deal, you offer me something closer to $6,000, and I then counter. Eventually we will either find common ground or not. But I have the car, and if I want to sell it, I need to come down to your comfort level. You have the money. You can’t just say "$4,000 is my final offer, throw the money at me and drive off.
I just don’t get how it’s one’s party’s fault when both sides can’t find common ground. If you can’t you move on and restructure the deal: I’ll give you the $4,000 and this old beater worth $1,000", or “I’ll give you $4,500 and shovel your snow for two months.” Etcetera.
I already gave the answer to this above in my response to septimus. Apparently you and others managed to skip it.
This one?
That’s your “answer” to why the minority should get to block the majority (but only in the Senate, mind you)? Seriously?
Would you mind actually answering my question?
Yeah. Dems aren’t compromising. That’s why the continuing resolution is at sequester levels instead of normal operating levels. The Dems have all but disrobed and presented their anuses for screwage by the Republicans. I’m glad to see they’re finally getting some spine, actually.
That first part sounds kinda reasonable…but it’s not what the Constitution actually says. If 64 Senators vote in favor of the new Free Trade Treaty with Ruritania and the others vote against it (and pretty much the whole Senate is present and voting)…Tough. The treaty hasn’t been ratified. Nobody says the treaty has been “filibustered” either, because that’s the constitutional procedure for ratifying treaties: “two-thirds of the Senators present” must concur.
Maybe we should change the Constitution. Maybe if we were writing it from scratch, given that the judicial branch is a separate and equal branch of the government, and appointments are for life, we should require a supermajority. But that still isn’t what the Constitution actually says. (You appoint judges with the constitution you have, not with the constitution you wish you had.)
And of course the Republicans have also been filibustering Obama’s executive appointments. And legislation (which this current “nuclear option” doesn’t even address; I guess changing that will be the Nagasaki to this Hiroshima.)