If you’re going to threaten to do something, you don’t have a lot of grounds for complaint if the other side actually does it.
50% is not consensus. Never was.
Does 50.0000001% make you feel better?
Filibusters used to be saved for extreme cases. The modern GOP uses them over and over. They can’t be trusted with what generations before them had, so they lose it.
Isn’t that a conservative way to do things?
That’s not “consensus” either.
Government is by majority, not ‘consensus’.
Consensus means the agreement of all participants, not 60 out of 100.
So please don’t claim it ‘used to be’ by something it never was.
No, consensus does not require unanimity. It is a “general agreement”. 51% is not “general agreement”. 60% is much closer to “general agreement”.
Where does it say that it requires “general agreement”? Aren’t you imposing a requirement of consensus where there is none?
To be clear, you are saying consensus, and it only requires 50%.
Ah. So this the break the Romney campaign needs.
Geez, you didn’t have to use the factual option on him. 
Let me repeat:
septimus asked me to “comment on GOP refusal to consent to Obama’s judiciary appointments. Do you defend their behavior? If so, why?”
And my response was:
Yes, I think filibustering judiciary appointments is quite legitimate. The reason is that those are not positions that serve at President’s whim, and cannot be removed by subsequent administrations. Thus they have to reflect a reasonable consensus, and not just a momentary 51% majority.
Hope this makes it clearer for you.
Well, given how intransigent the Republicans have been, citing this and this and this, it was clearly needed to get this show on the road.
The problem is that the Senate has no limit to debate due to a belief that gentlemen should be able to talk on an issue without limit. Reid should just use the nuclear option and pass a motion that limits debate like every other deliberative body has.
I agree with you. The Senate should be able to filibuster judiciary appointments. But this is contingent on the entire Senate consenting to a filibuster rule because deterring unqualified or fringe candidates benefits everyone in the long term. This means there has to be some link between the identity of a nominee and the likelihood that someone in the Senate will filibuster. This link is now broken. It makes no sense to expect the Senate to permit a procedural rule that is no longer mutually desirable, so out it goes. That’s just how the game works.
I heartily approve of ending the filibuster for judicial appointees. I’m with Andrew Jackson: to the victors go the spoils. If the Republicans don’t like it, they can try nominating some candidates with sense.
They were not striving for a reasonable consensus. Had they filibustered an individual candidate who was utterly lacking in qualification (sort of like Harriett Myers), filibustering a single nomination can make sense. They aren’t trying to object to particular candidates, they were seeking to prevent this president from nominating any judges to any court. I’m sure they would be more than willing to consider judges nominated by a white male Republican just like Jesus intended, but since they decided that they didn’t give a fuck about who was nominated, only who was doing the nominating, the circus had to leave town.
What’s not clear is the disconnect between this:
[QUOTE=Terr]
The reason is that those are not positions that serve at President’s whim, and cannot be removed by subsequent administrations
[/QUOTE]
and this
[QUOTE=Parthol]
…reasons that have little or nothing to do with the candidates themselves?
[/QUOTE]
How is your reason relevant, if the reason they’re being filibustered has nothing to do with their qualifications?
You’d be correct if there were, in fact, no judges approved for any court during Obama presidency. Is that true?
Lack of consensus is lack of consensus. For any reason.
Some of course were in the past, including two Supremes. But now you’ve got guys like Cruz declaring a Teahad on Obama, the only way to get more judges in office was to take the toy away from the naughty little boys.