Did I mention the Constitution in my post? The Constitution doesn’t say filibuster should or should not exist.
Ahhh…okay. So:
- You’re okay with removing the filibuster as an option for non-judicial appointees (since you think it’s wrong to do).
- You believe that the President should only get to appoint judges if his same party holds the Senate.*
Got it. Thanks!
*I mean, the GOP stated that NO Obama appointee was getting through - qualification didn’t matter. If the Democrats did the same thing next time it came up the practical outcome would be that a party must hold both and you’re okay with that. Or do you put some conditions on when consensus should be reasonably achievable? If so, what are they?
ETA: Can I just say that it still seems weird to see MEBuckner post and not see “Moderator” under the user name?
But the Constitution sets out procedures for doing things, including clearly stating a requirement for a supermajority in one or both houses at several points (in the Senate for treaties and for convictions on impeachments; in either house, to expel a member; for both houses together, to override a presidential veto or to send a constitutional amendment to the states). And it also has a procedure for breaking tie votes in the Senate (the Veep gets to vote), which clearly implies a presumption of majority voting except for those specified exceptions. The “filibuster” is a historical accident that we put up with partly because it wasn’t actually used that much (and was kind of entertaining when it was, with high and mighty U.S. Senators standing there reading the phone book and such); now, it has become routine (to the point that the news media will blithely state that some bill “failed to pass in the Senate” when in fact 57 Senators voted for it). It’s time for the filibuster to go.
Just for the record, I am in favor of the current system and have never suggested that a single body should replace it.
The point here is the one you’ve been dodging. What is the responsibility of the majority party toward the minority? How exactly do you justify advocating simultaneously that the majority can totally ignore the minority and that the majority must bend to the will of the minority depending upon which party is the majority? Other than in purely partisan terms, of course. If you want to argue that, fine. Partisanship is the way of the world. But you seem to arguing some principle instead. I just can’t figure out what that might be.
I am the Moderator Under the Mountain. When the SDMB is at its darkest hour, and every forum is overrun with spammers and trolls, and all the other Moderators lie slain (or maybe Marley has run wild and banned them all), I shall return from Avalon* to set things right.
*And when hell has frozen over. Or I have a lot more free time.
For crying out loud, how many times do I have to point out the post in which I answer your question?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16872576
A ridiculously wrong statement, factually wrong. The last Obama appointee was confirmed on Nov 4th, unanimously. That means ALL GOP senators present voted for. Including Cruz. There are lots and lots of others, also unanimously confirmed.
When you start believing your own propaganda, that’s the sign that you’re on the wrong path.
This is nonsense. The dems let the republicans add 200 amendments to the ACA even though most of them were shitty, and then the republicans voted against it anyway. They’ve invited debate, bipartianship, and generally good governance from the republicans, and in response, the republicans have decided that they’re not going to let anything pass no matter what.
If they can make the government worse, then they feel it’ll work for their platform, even if makes everyone worse off.
Especially since that is substantially their platform.
The frequently heard meme about “compromise” is too startling for comprehension. In the specific problem that triggered the nuclear bomb, GOP insisted that zero (0, nada, rien) appeals court judges be appointed by Obama. What opportunity for compromise did the Dems overlook? “We’ll repeal Obamacare if you give us one judge?”
I maintain that the Great Recession has been prolonged by “compromise.” Of the $800 billion “Obama stimulus” almost half was direct Federal tax cuts demanded by the GOP; most of the remainder was state transfers, often leading to state tax cuts. Yet despite this huge (and hugely wrong) compromise, the GOP bullshitters like to speak of the “Obama $800 billion stimulus spending” and how tax cuts would have been better.
I understand the motives of Beck and Ryan and other GOP figures to prevaricate. But, if we were in the Pit, I’d want to ask pointed questions about where “conservative” Dopers get their “information.”
Who knew? Thanks for the clarification!
You’re right, I was too broad. The are only blocking all appointments to the DCA Court of Appeals and are doing their best to delay many other appointments - again, in most cases without regard to the qualifications of the candidates.
Funny how Mitch McConnell seemed to feel this same way back in 2005 until the Gang of 14 derailed his plans to detonate the nuclear option. I guess they couldn’t find 7 sane Republicans this time. Would you have reacted the same way if the GOP had done it back then?
They have a reason to do it that has nothing to do with “we hate Obama”.
Democrats railed against the “nuclear option” then, and NYT, which used to advocate it when Democrats were in power, came out with a “mea culpa” editorial when Republicans were in control claiming that it was mistaken to support the “nuclear option” - so mistaken, please forgive us. Of course, NYT is back to its “mistake” now. Funny how that works.
Intervening when a father fails to buy his kid an ice cream cone is less appropriate than intervening when the father is breaking the kid’s bones. I wonder if right-wingers can comprehend even that much.
Right-wing apologists are ignoring my main point, which is that filibusters against GWB were appropriate given the ludicrous nature of his appointments. Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court? :smack: Michael “You’re doing a fine job” Brown, the horse-owner’s steward appointed to head FEMA. :smack:
So far, only Elena Kagan has been offered as an example of BHO appointment to counter the insanely stupid appointments of GWB.
The real issue isn’t which side objected to the other more times. The issue is that one side is just far too objectionable for sentient Americans to stomach.
It was a huge bill. and they determined that even with some/many of the amendments they made in it, the overall bill was still something they couldn’t feel they supported. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that. And keep in mind, one of the reason they didn’t vote for it in the very end is that it was rushed through. They should have taken a pause after all the amendments they were going to allow were in it, then given people 2 weeks to read the full 2,300-page bill.
And where we are now with the abomination that is Obamacare shows that that that would have been a good thing to do.
Easy. How about something like: “Okay here are three different judges”, or “Here’s what we’d like to do, you give us these two and we’ll let you pick one”. There are hundred other ways to compromise. And when you start to be things on the table other than the judgeships themselves, a million.
Or “you give us this one and we’ll let you pick two”? :dubious:
BTW, when Clarence Thomas – one of the most right-wing Justices ever – was appointed to SCOTUS, the Democrats controlled not merely 41 Senate seats, but 55 seats.
In hindsight would you agree that the Democrats were stupid to let Bush-41 et al have their way, and that they should have insisted on the appointment of centrist judges?
If your underlying message is that Democrats respect the will of the Electorate and the Office of the President, but present-day Republicans do not, then we are in agreement.
That link goes nowhere. And I’m quite sure that you have not discussed the House, which is the heart of my question.
It was a year and a half. :rolleyes: The general topic has been in public discussion since Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 campaign.
Gonna tell us about things being rammed down your throats next? I always like that part.
Odd how, even with the endless stream of lies the Republicans have told and are continuing to tell about it, having lost any substantive argument, the people still want it. Remarkable, ain’t it?
And you know what? If the GOP had wanted anything specific in return for letting Obama appoint his choices for judges to a lower court,* it was up to them to say so*. But they weren’t suggesting a quid pro quo; they were just saying NO.
And they weren’t saying this NO on the basis of any specifics about the nominees, which at least would have constituted participation in the Senate’s Constitutional advise-and-consent role. They were simply saying NO, the President’s appointments to this court are going to be deep-sixed, because they didn’t want judges appointed by Democrats to constitute a majority on this particular court.
They were using Senate rules to violate the Constitutional prerogative of the President to fill vacancies on Article III courts subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. So the Dems changed the Senate rules to ensure that the Constitution would henceforth be followed. (Senate rules, of course, should bend to fit the Constitution, rather than bending the Constitution.) End of story.