Senate and the Nuclear Option
Offline So what does this really mean in the long run ?
Is this going to have any real major effect on the minority parties in the future ?
Is this, like some news agencies claim, an attempt to get the heat of the current problems ?
(That seems to be the general consensus on Fox anyone, which is no the general consensus on CNN. I watch both networks by the way).
Thoughts on this ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25042482
Obama supports Senate rule change to curb filibusters
US President Barack Obama has lent his support to a move by Senate Democrats to limit Republicans' ability to block White House nominations.
The measure, known as the "nuclear option", curbs the power of the upper chamber's minority party to use a blocking tactic known as a filibuster.
Mr Obama cited Republicans' "unprecedented pattern of obstruction".
Republicans vowed they would use the new rule against Democrats if they won back the Senate in the next election.
Correspondents said Thursday's motion, which passed 52-48, would make American politics even more acrimonious.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
- Login to post comments
I have mentioned this before a long time ago about this subject. I do hate the abuse, but we are supposed to be a sanctuary government where you don't have simple mob rule by vote, the filibuster should not be used the way it has been, but it was put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Now before anyone says "but democrats did it". Um look back far enough in history, even though the rule change didn't go through like yesterday, you'll find that the parties were reversed on this very rule on argument.
I understand the intent, republican obstructionism lead to this. But, I worry what will happen when, which is always a possibility, power shifts what republicans could do with no filibuster.
The good part is that it does not apply to laws, only appointments, and not the Supreme Court.
My argument on any law, regarding any subject, and I argue this with my liberal friends about other types of laws regarding other subjects, "power shifts over time, be careful what you wish for".
I'd be interested to know how the new rule language is written and if there is a time review required so that it can be reversed if needed.
I do for example hate it when the media says about the Supreme Court, that when they make a ruling, that ruling stands forever. No, future presidents appoint their judges, and those future judges have turned over prior decisions, all ratios aside. They have upheld horrible laws in the past, but over time, however slowly, we do progress.
Our system should always be designed so that the pendulum never gets too far in a swing that it breaks. Not sure how to feel about this, but I don't want a short term fix that can blow up in our face in the future.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Short sighted idiots. Such procedures are in place to protect the right of official opposition parties to prevent anti-minority legislation from being passed. It's supposed to be hard to change the law. This will come back to bite them the next time they are the opposition and the R's are in power.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I only hope there is some Constitutional provision that can reverse this when needed. This does worry me a bit.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think it is a sign that they realize how fucked up the implementation of Bamacare is going and that they are quite likely to lose their majority in the Senate over it in the elections next year. Since they don't have enough time to overcome the filibusters one at a time, the rule change allows them to push through the President's appointments before they lose the majority. I don't think it really has any kind of huge effect long term.
It used to be that when the minority blocked a nomination, the majority forced an actual filibuster, since a filibuster requires the minority party to keep most of their people on the floor 24/7 in case the majority calls a sudden vote while also having someone talk constantly, it is a rather fatiguing process for them. That prevented them from doing it too often. However, in modern times, the majority typically just tables the motion and does some backroom wheeling and dealing to bribe members of the minority to cross the aisle. So if you aren't going to have real filibusters, why bother with the rule?
In an ideal world, they would go back to forcing real filibusters which encourage debate, but the world isn't ideal and the democrats don't want Rand Paul talking and attracting media attention for another 16 hours- especially since Bamacare has now provided so much for him to talk about that isn't pretty for them.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X