# No more recess appointments - is this the end of the filibuster? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702 "2014-06-26T15:42:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/61 "2014-06-27T18:22:46Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Create a regulatory bureaucracy, against the will of Republicans It was created by passage of a bill by both houses and signed by the President. The Republicans had every opportunity to present their objections and the reasons for them during that process, and they failed. What gives them the right to prevent the will of the people, via their elected representatives, from being done after the fact? > [@](#): > > fairly extreme, if not entirely unqualified, Democrat Warren’s “not entirely unqualified”? 😃 I suspect you’re using \*extreme \*and \*Democrat \*as synonyms, btw. > [@](#): > > Did you expect Republican support? I never do anymore. It is simply not available, is it? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/62 "2014-06-27T19:42:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > For many offices recess appointments have been the only means by which Obama could appoint _anyone_. Look at the BATF - it hasn’t had a head since _2006_ because the GOP wouldn’t even approve Bush’s nominees. It took a _year_ for the Senate to confirm the ambassador to Egypt. The Constitution doesn’t say that the President can appoint anyone he pleases or anyone of his own persuasion. He must do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the Senate has rules that state that 60 senators must agree, then that’s what advice and consent means. I’m sure that there is one person out of 310 million in this country that the President and 60 senators can agree upon. It only doesn’t happen because presidents have stubbornly tried to hold on to the old, but established idea that as long as their preferred choice converts oxygen into carbon dioxide, then the Senate should just rubber stamp. This is just the latest volley in that old power struggle, but I think that more Senate involvement in the process is closer to the idea that the framers had in mind. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/63 "2014-06-27T20:03:24Z")
Advise and consent, yes. Prevent, no. Why do you suppose the minority prevented Warren from being voted on _at all_, instead of simply voting against her and honorably accepting the result? We used to hear those guys chant “Elections have consequences”, but maybe that isn’t true anymore now that they keep losing them. > [@](#): > > I’m sure that there is one person out of 310 million in this country that the President and 60 senators can agree upon. Not if the \>40 minority has, _as a party goal_, the prevention of the office from being filled by _anyone_. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/64 "2014-06-27T20:19:38Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Did you expect Republican support? They shouldn’t have to support it. They should, however, have to vote on it. The refusal to hold a vote lets them look less like cowards. Let them stand up and say ‘NO’, goramm it! Let them do what they are paid to do. Why is it we cannot have a rule that the Senate has to vote when the President makes his nomination? What good does not having a vote do, except helping one party look less like pussies? But as far as recess appointments: Yogsosoth asked up thread about whether or not having no cabinet head actually stops the department from doing it’s job, crippling their functionality. Personally, I think it would effect the politics but have little effect on the functionality. Do not all these departments have deputies that act as department in head if there is an absence? If Holder resigns, and no one takes his place under Obama, does the Department of Justice close up shop? No , the deputy acts as Secretary. (it does not help my point at all that Deputy James Cole is himself a recess appointment) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/65 "2014-06-27T21:26:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Advise and consent, yes. Prevent, no. Why do you suppose the minority prevented Warren from being voted on _at all_, instead of simply voting against her and honorably accepting the result? We used to hear those guys chant “Elections have consequences”, but maybe that isn’t true anymore now that they keep losing them. > > Not if the \>40 minority has, _as a party goal_, the prevention of the office from being filled by _anyone_. Why can’t the Senate show it’s lack of consent by refusing to vote on a _particular_ nominee? Part of the Senate rules (until recently) was a provision requiring 60 votes in order to decide whether to give a majority vote on a nominee. That’s just as much of advising and consenting as anything. I mean, they didn’t vote on _me_, right? I think that I am qualified yet no senator nor the President even thought of me. Why is Warren deserving of a vote just because the President likes her? Again, it’s a relatively new idea that the clause implies that the President appoints and then the Senate votes up or down. The text says “by and with” [QUOTE=COTUS] [The President]…_by and with_ the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint …Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States… [/QUOTE] emphasis added. It looks like there is to be a cooperate effort; not a you name someone and we must vote yes or no, and if no, you try again. Why can’t it be “we don’t like that person at all so we’re not going to vote”? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/66 "2014-06-27T21:29:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > emphasis added. It looks like there is to be a cooperate effort; I don’t want a beat a dead horse, but the Republicans have been pretty straight-forward about their refusal to cooperative with this President on _anything_. It is their mantra. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/67 "2014-06-27T22:51:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Why can’t the Senate show it’s lack of consent by refusing to vote on a _particular_ nominee? Having trouble with the meaning of “minority”, aren’t we? > [@](#): > > Part of the Senate rules (until recently) was a provision requiring 60 votes in order to decide whether to give a majority vote on a nominee. Which is the fucking topic of the thread. It’s right there in the title. > [@](#): > > That’s just as much of advising and consenting as anything. Do you disagree that the painless filibuster permits a minority veto on anything it wants to? Because those are the facts; that it does and it has made a reflexive habit of doing so. > [@](#): > > is Warren deserving of a vote just because the President likes her? Not because he “likes her”. :rolleyes: Because he’s the President and he has nominated for a federal position _as the Constitution requires him to do._ :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Again, it’s a relatively new idea that the clause implies that the President appoints and then the Senate votes up or down. The text says “by and with” And the majority has indeed done so. You are very confused if you think the topic is the Constitutional executive power of appointment, and not the existence and abuse of the minority veto. > [@](#): > > Why can’t it be “we don’t like that person at all so we’re not going to vote”? That isn’t the reason, is it? _Damn …_ ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/68 "2014-06-28T01:52:45Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > And now it may never be again. As much as we pay them, they should never be in recess again! ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/69 "2014-06-28T03:52:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Make them stand up and talk, making it clear to everyone, including TV watchers, just what is happening. More usefully, it will become a very rare occasion, to be used only for the most important matters - and \*\*not \*\*for simply discrediting the very concept of government, as it has been recently. So rather than allow the minority to obstruct one appointment or bill or amendment the majority should give them the floor so that no business at all can be conducted in the Senate? _“Oh please Br’er Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”_ Obstruction on steroids isn’t the answer to the problem of obstruction. > [@](#): > > It isn’t \*silent \*filibustering that has to end, it’s \*easy, consequence-free \*filibustering that has to end. How? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/70 "2014-06-28T16:24:24Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The Constitution doesn’t say that the President can appoint anyone he pleases or anyone of his own persuasion. He must do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. The BATF example clearly shows that the Senate is not interested in confirming anyone. If a _Republican_ POTUS can’t get his nominee confirmed by his own party then we are obviously past the point where Senators are basing their objections on the qualifications of the candidates. Instead we are looking at a Senate which is using the consent process as an end run around the POTUS’ powers of appointment. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/71 "2014-06-28T16:57:17Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > So rather than allow the minority to obstruct one appointment or bill or amendment the majority should give them the floor so that no business at all can be conducted in the Senate? The key is that it would become much rarer a tactic, and with real political/electoral consequences for those using it. No filibuster has lasted indefinitely, has it? > [@](#): > > How? Change parliamentary rules (it happens all the time) to limit the 60-vote rule to actual floor debates. Also eliminate the blue-slip rule (that isn’t even a rule, just a fucking _custom_), although that’s a secondary issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/72 "2014-06-28T17:01:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The BATF example clearly shows that the Senate is not interested in confirming anyone. If a _Republican_ POTUS can’t get his nominee confirmed by his own party then we are obviously past the point where Senators are basing their objections on the qualifications of the candidates. Instead we are looking at a Senate which is using the consent process as an end run around the POTUS’ powers of appointment. Be that as it may, it’s consistent with the constitution. Would you support amendment to change that? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/73 "2014-06-28T17:56:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The key is that it would become much rarer a tactic, and with real political/electoral consequences for those using it. No filibuster has lasted indefinitely, has it? Standing filibusters don’t go on forever because the majority sees the futility and moves on to other business. If there weren’t at least 40 senators supporting the filibuster the majority could win a cloture vote. It’s a lot easier for those 40+ senators to keep 2 or three of their group in the chamber at all times to keep the filibuster going than it is for the majority to keep 50 senators in the chamber at all times to maintain a quorum. This is the point I’m making. People misunderstand the burden of the filibuster. It takes much more effort by the majority than by the minority. It’s not that modern senators have become too lazy or corrupt or whatever to bother with requiring their fellows to stand up on the floor in opposition. It’s that the senators, unlike their critics, actually understand how the Senate works. > [@](#): > > Change parliamentary rules (it happens all the time) to limit the 60-vote rule to actual floor debates. Also eliminate the blue-slip rule (that isn’t even a rule, just a fucking _custom_), although that’s a secondary issue. Certainly the Senate can (and just did) change procedure to limit the filibuster. Or even eliminate it altogether. I hope they do (along with the blue slips). But no matter what happens the standing filibuster won’t return to relevance. Any part of the filibuster rules that are maintained will lead to silent filibusters because the only way to make the minority stand and argue indefinitely without obstructing other business would be to continue to somehow, somewhere conduct that business while they are still arguing. And that would mean giving up the assumption that debate is meaningful, that thoughtful arguments might move other senators. That is, the very justification for allowing senators unlimited debate in the first place. The Senate is far too invested in its self-image as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” to give that up. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/74 "2014-06-29T16:02:34Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > What this calls for is a Constitutional Amendment, which I am happy to provide: > “The President shall nominate appointments to federal agencies and the judiciary. These appointments shall be effective when approved by a simple majority of the Senate, or, in the case when the full Senate fails to vote on the nomination, the appointment shall be effective ninety days after the nomination is received by the Senate.” That would effectively allow a minority to confirm an appointment, by filibustering for 90 days. I like your intent, but your proposal doesn’t quite work. Got another approach? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/75 "2014-06-29T18:12:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Be that as it may, it’s consistent with the constitution. Would you support amendment to change that? Consistent with the letter, perhaps, but certainly not with the spirit. And it’s certainly no more consistent than the recess appointments. I would support an amendment to codify the Senate’s role, yes. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/76 "2014-06-29T18:44:27Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Standing filibusters don’t go on forever because the majority sees the futility and moves on to other business. [Plenty of counterexamples.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#20th_century_and_the_emergence_of_cloture) Even the longest ever failed to stop the 1957 Civil Rights Act. What would be your favorite example of a standing filibuster _succeeding_? :dubious: > [@](#): > > People misunderstand the burden of the filibuster. It takes much more effort by the majority than by the minority. That’s true even of the go-fuck-yourselves version that the minority now uses as an absolute veto - except that there is no amount of effort by the majority that can defeat it. > [@](#): > > But no matter what happens the standing filibuster won’t return to relevance. Didn’t you just claim that it moves the majority onto other things? > [@](#): > > Any part of the filibuster rules that are maintained will lead to silent filibusters because the only way to make the minority stand and argue indefinitely without obstructing other business would be to continue to somehow, somewhere conduct that business while they are still arguing. Better look up “cloture”. > [@](#): > > And that would mean giving up the assumption that debate is meaningful, that thoughtful arguments might move other senators. Don’t we already know all the work is done behind the scenes, and that what happens on the floor is showcasing? That’s been the case since, well, always. Saying so won’t constitute a change. > [@](#): > > The Senate is far too invested in its self-image as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” to give that up. I haven’t heard that claim made in years, have you? The facts to the contrary are too glaringly obvious. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/77 "2014-06-29T18:46:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Be that as it may, it’s consistent with the constitution. The constitution has a lot to say about the majority winning votes. Nothing about allowing a sore-loser minority to veto them. So, no, it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/78 "2014-06-29T18:58:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The constitution has a lot to say about the majority winning votes. Nothing about allowing a sore-loser minority to veto them. > > So, no, it isn’t. I’m unclear what you are saying. Are you saying that the consent powers being used to block any and all nominees regardless of qualifications is not consistent with the constitution? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/79 "2014-06-29T19:43:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m unclear what you are saying. Are you saying that the consent powers being used to block any and all nominees regardless of qualifications is not consistent with the constitution? It certainly doesn’t seem to be consistent with the intent. Surely the framers did not intend to give a minority the power to prevent the proper functioning of the executive by gaming the constitution and parliamentary procedure. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702/80 "2014-06-29T20:53:51Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > That would effectively allow a minority to confirm an appointment, by filibustering for 90 days. > > I like your intent, but your proposal doesn’t quite work. Got another approach? I don’t see the problem. If the minority doesn’t like it, let them filibuster. When 90 days are up, then the appointment is confirmed. If you don’t have 51 votes to deny a confirmation, then it goes through. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-recess-appointments-is-this-the-end-of-the-filibuster/691702.md?page=5)