You don’t get to decide for them what reasons are defensible.
The only reason I’ve seen put up is that democrats did it first.
If your only defense is that you did it first, then you know that what you did was wrong.
If you also admit that you are escalating in the process, then even that defense doesn’t work.
(post shortened)
Not with this particular Congresses make up, anyway. The battle lines are drawn.
It’s up to the voters to elect more reasonable representatives.
Some of the news reporting on this is way over the top with the Huffington Post writing that the vote “resulted in permanently changing the Senate rules …”. Nothing can be permanent in the Senate. The same motives that have prevented the majority party in the past from abolishing the filibuster for SC nominees could just as well persuade a future majority party to bring it back. This talk of permanence makes it sound like when a rule is changed it can never be undone which just isn’t true. Sure, there’s a likelihood that it won’t come back but that’s not what much of the press is saying. It’s misleading reportage.
It’s HuffPo. They’re not very good. Far from the worst, but far from the best. IMO.
The elected Democrats didn’t defend the 60 vote requirement when they had that option. The elected Republicans didn’t defend the 60 vote requirement now.
It was nice while it lasted. IMHO, of course.
Anyone who believes that this move guarantees their party being in the majority in 2020 is dreaming.
Well, that’s wrong. Bork opposed the exclusionary rule, which is the principal bulwark against that behavior by the police. He thought letting “criminals go free” was too high a price to pay in order to keep the police in check.
He disfavors the exclusionary rule, but that does not mean he favors lawless behavior by police. There are any number of alternate sanctions that could dissuade the police from breaking down doors lawlessly.
Prior to Mapp v Ohio, would you say the entire government wanted rogue state police breaking down doors?
“Rogue” doesn’t necessarily mean “lawlessly”. “Rogue” could mean many things, including just “unreasonable”, “unfair”, “careless”, etc.
The filibuster is as much tradition as it is a rule.
By removing the rule, they are breaking the tradition.
Once the tradition is broken, then replacing the rule does nothing.
I don’t know why the dems should have defended the 60 vote requirement, they were against it. I was against it.
Theoretically, the dems had the power to do the nuclear option back then, but rather than pull that, and get through a much better healthcare bill, they instead allowed the rules to stay mostly unchanged, and passed what was able to be passed with the 60 required.
I don’t think that this guarantees either party anything. It’s all strategy and tactics to increase the odds of that happening.
In my view, allowing the republicans to be the ones to nuke the filibuster allows any backlash of that PR to be on their heads, and then once dems get back in power, whether it be 2018 (very doubtful without some very serious shakeups), 2020, relatively reasonable, if things keep going the way they are, or even if its not till 2048 (at which time, dems will have quite a bit to fix.)
I would love to keep the filibuster if used sparingly in extreme circumstance. Using it to block a couple of appointments that seem sketchy to the minority party out of a couple hundred seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Using it to block any and all legislation, and the majority of cabinet and judicial appointments as the republicans did under obama, not so reasonable.
The entire point of the filibuster and all the (lack of) “rules” of the senate was that the senate was supposed to be the wise deliberative body. It did not need to have rules in order to get them to play nice.
“Misleading reportage”? You’re being kind to these “reporters”. The story was written by two assholes, Michael McAuliff and Jennifer Bendery, who can’t/won’t believe that the same, or similar, filibuster rule could be established by the U.S. Senate. And it gives them a chance to use the word “Nuclear” in a sentence. Makes their article seem more important, doesn’t it?
“The rules were changed to allow a simple 51 vote majority to confirm federal judges”, doesn’t have the same shock value.
Yes, it does. It means he thinks lawless behavior by the police isn’t as important as most people think it is. It’s not like everyone else likes seeing “criminals go free.” They just disfavor police abuse more than Bork does.
Not really. The history has shown that neither monetary damages nor internal discipline are sufficient. The only thing that stops them is strict application of the exclusionary rule.
The truth is that the exclusionary rule doesn’t do that great a job either, but mostly because it’s been poked through with a bunch of holes, mostly by conservative justices who favor rogue cops kicking down doors as long as they get the bad guy.
To some degree, yes. But there’s a big difference between being late to support a solution and rejecting the solution 40 years after it’s in place.
(post shortened)
Who was it that removed the filibuster from lesser federal judge confirmations?
The Republicans removed the filibuster from federal Supremes.
Both sides will continue to blame the other for the end of the filibuster. Claiming otherwise, won’t make it come true.
Which elective body doesn’t need rules in order to get them to play nice? At least members of the U.S. Congress aren’t caning each other, or fighting duels, anymore.
Yeah, same difference. One SCOTUS nomination being filibustered, versus practically all judicial appointments blocked for an entire Presidential term. Clearly the Republicans had to take this just as seriously as the Dems took the other. #noreasonablecoursebut.
How does the world look through a fun-house mirror?
Got a cite for that (“quite obvious to anyone looking from outside objectively”)?
Really, the chance that a future majority will grant back blocking powers to the minority is about as likely as a fish growing nipples. At least until the robots take over. They’d probably do something groundbreaking like that.
I think it’s accurate reportage.
Once the Republicans have changed that rule, it’s virtually inconceivable that any majority will ever bring it back. That’s a rule that restricts the power of the majority, and they have no direct incentive to restore it. The only incentive they might have is the notion that they would benefit if they ever became the minority. But once the rule is lifted once, then there’s no reason for a majority to expect that if they became a minority that the new majority wouldn’t just lift it again.
There’s no difference between your saying that Bork favors lawless behavior by police and someone else saying that others (e.g. you) favor letting criminals going free. One statement is about as accurate as the other.
As you say, it’s a matter of how to balance two competing principles. If you’re comfortable saying about a guy who (relatively) devalues the danger of lawless behavior by police that he “favors” it, then you should be equally comfortable saying about a guy who (relatively) devalues the danger of letting criminals go free that he favors that.
Wasn’t your post #704 essentially a ‘Republicans did it first’ argument?
Well, at least it bothers you, so two it is. 
While I’m obviously not happy about Gorsuch on the court, it was already a stolen seat, and it was already going to be filled with someone like him, so I marked that to market awhile back.
And I didn’t really expect the GOP to wait and see whether this turned out to be the last year of Trump’s Presidency before breaking their own bullshit ‘rule.’
The only thing new is, yes, the SCOTUS filibuster is gone, and that’s a Good Thing, because it won’t be there in 2021 either. So I’m really kind of upbeat about this.
I’m also amused at how McCain and Lindsey Graham moaned about how awful it was that the filibuster was going away. Well, nobody held a gun to their head: they got to decide which was more important - this one nomination, or the future of the filibuster. Apparently no matter how horrible it was that the filibuster would go away to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, doing the latter was more important than the filibuster. The Court that could have gone on indefinitely with eight Justices if Hillary had won, needed to have Gorsuch on it more badly than the Senate needed the filibuster.
This reaffirms a key point of liberal doctrine: anyone who puts their faith in John McCain voting as moderately as he comes across to the media is out of their fucking minds.
What was your reaction in 2013 to the breaking of tradition?