What do you think of the Senate's vote to eliminate all filibusters for most pre

1. 0

   savvydatingposted 10 years ago

   What do you think of the Senate's vote to eliminate all filibusters for most presidential nominees?
   
   Is this decision good or balanced, or are we treading in murky waters? What's your opinion either way?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 79

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   Of all the filibusters to block appointments in the history of America, half have been against Obama nominees. That is ridiculous. The filibuster should be a selective and precise tool for challenging nominees that are seen as particularly deficient. The GOP has been using it as a blunt force maul to block anyone and everyone, even against nominees that they had no issues with. The nomination of Robert Bacharach is a good example. Filibustered for nine months even though he was eventually nominated UNANIMOUSLY. Does that make sense to anyone?
   
   Put simply, the GOP behaved like a child and are now being treated like one by having their favorite toy taken away.
   
   Is this good in the long run? No, the filibuster was a useful check on power, but at the same time, the current GOP isn't good for anyone either. They have shown a clear antipathy to Democracy and don't deserve to have any power. They've brought this on themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hello junkseller. Bacharach is an unfortunate example. That being said, I am very, very sorry to see this system of checks and balances go by the wayside. Thank you for commenting.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The filibuster was never a check on power. It was a delaying measure to avoid what was usually the inevitable.

      replyreport
3. 57

   retief2000posted 10 years ago

   The ability to protect the political minority from an accumulation of political power by the political majority is vital is we are to remain a nation ruled by laws and not by men.  I wonder if Obama's nominees were more reflective of our society, in a general sense, would they have been blocked? His Supreme Court nominees were not blocked.
   
   The motive behind this latest power grab was Republicans blocking efforts to increase the size of the Circuit Court that serves the District of Columbia.  Court packing has been resisted before because it is an obvious effort to turn court decisions in favor of the Executive, in clear violation of the idea of Separation of Powers.
   
   This power grab not only reduces the independence of the courts but signals a total commitment by Senate Democrats to fulfilling the goals of the Executive, another attack on the Separation of Powers.  If this erosion of a vital protection against the accumulation of unbridled power continues our liberty is threatened.
   
   The adversarial relationship between the 3 Branches of Federal Government was intended as, yet another, safeguard against tyranny.  It is failing and we are in danger.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      relief2000, you hit the nail on the head. It is tyranny that we must fear. I believe it has already begun with this administration... and will only get worse.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think it began quite some time ago but has accelerate, of late. We put on foot on the path to tyranny with the direct election of Senators.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Savvydating, I do understand your concerns. The closest we came to tyranny was when FDR was president and he tried to pack the Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges. He failed.  Nixon tried to avoid the courts over Watergate and failed.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Larry. I appreciate your understanding and your feedback. For sure!

      replyreport
4. 90

   suzettenaplesposted 10 years ago

   We shall find out in the future.  If it helps to end the gridlock in the Senate than it will be helpful.  Obama's nominations on federal courts are purposely being held up through Republican filibusters.  This is not fair or right-I can understand if there is truly a question or concern about a nominee, but the Republicans are just using it to harass Obama and derail anything he tries to do.  As I see the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for his happening.  They refuse to govern which calls for compromise.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Democrats blocked some highly qualified Bush nominees and when the Senate Republican majority contemplated this same tactic it was attacked by Barrack Obama and others as an unreasonable power grab. But they were Republicans so they were bad.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You make a good point the filibuster is only good if it supports your point of view, otherwise, it is an abuse of power. In other words, it gives the majority party the opportunity to pull more party strings--a chairmanship for a vote, etc.

      replyreport
5. 52

   tbHistorianposted 10 years ago

   When this type of political power is unleashed, tyranny begins.
   If it remains unchecked, tyranny expands.
   If it is not overturned, full tyranny will replace the democratic republic that was created by the founders.
   But, those who love to worship Obama and the tyrannical democrats will continue to support the path to tyranny.  Just the same as they continue to support the current failure of Obamacare.
   Those who love and pledge allegiance to the USA will not support any tyranny regardless of source (republican, democrat, independent, etc.).

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I support Obamacare because without it I cannot buy insurance due to pre-existing health conditions. I was a newspaper reporter for 16 years, fought for open meetings, exposed a corrupt police chief and help change a system of gov't. Is that tyranny?

      replyreport
   2. 52

      Paul Froehlichposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The Founders didn{t create the filibuster.  They created a Congress that required a simple majority to pass most things, and an extraordinary majority for a few things, such as ratifying a treaty, proposing a constitutional amendment,.

      replyreport
6. 0

   Larry Wallposted 10 years ago

   The filibuster has always been a misused tool and I have always been opposed to the method of running government. Under Senate rules and to a lesser extent House rules, lawmakers have adequate time to make their case for or against a bill. For one person to have the power to hold up a vote is not in the best interest of this country. It worked for Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but that was because he was dealing with a group of corrupt colleagues, who caved in and gave up at the last minute. It is a good movie, but has no connection to the reality of today.  No one should want to give unlimited power to anyone. The group you support today that has the power, may be the minority group next year making claims that they are being unfairly treated by the other party. Running this country is not a game. However, the zeal of both parties to take control and effectively run the executive branch is not the way our government should operate. Let's start by moving the Senators and house members around so that the person sitting next to him is of the opposing party. Make them look each other in the face and say they are acting in the best interest of all and mean it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Larry Wall. Thanks for dropping by.  It seems the filibuster often delays the inevitable. I see it as a last resort tool of checks and balances, though it overused as of late. But removing it only widens the gap--now Senators will talk even less.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Filibusters do not have to be germane to the topic and no one is listening anyway, so what do we lose?

      replyreport
   3. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Larry, my point is that I'd rather there be filibuster than not. The filibuster can be useful, at times, and to remove it only guarantees (in my opinion) that Dems & the GOP have even less reason to negotiate.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I use to work for an ex-Congressman in my last job. I was a news reporter for 16 years.  I do not think I have ever seen a filibuster that changed any significant issue--only delayed the inevitable. Usually, there is a bare majority listening.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Filibusters impose an effective super-majority requirement of 60, not 50 votes  I find this change bothersome because I sense this administration will impose this rule upon Supreme Court nominees, and whatever else suits them, as will the GOP if...

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Anything you fear the Democrats might do, should apply to the Republicans and what they might do. A super majority is fine. However, you need meaningful debate and not the pointless dribble of a filibuster.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yep. I began saying that the GOP will do the same, but ran out of room. There will be no meaningful debate withib this administration, which is why the Republicans resort to the filibuster. Now they can't even do that.. I do appreciate your comments.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The ABA Code of Judicial Conducsays that nominees “shall not make ... statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.” A filibuster delays the inevitabl

      replyreport
   9. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Larry, you are much more optimistic than I am. I do not trust the changes this administration has made and the ways in which they have made them. You and I disagree, but I do appreciate your positive manner of setting forth clear arguments.

      replyreport
7. 83

   William15posted 10 years ago

   It's not that big of a deal to me. Most "important" decisions can still be filibustered. It's a way to get things done. Minority parties have been abusing the filibuster WAY more than they have in the past. The important thing to remember is that the knife cuts both ways. When the Republicans inevitably gain control of the Senate, they will have that protection as well.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You are absolutely correct and that is a good thing. The filibuster is a stalling tatic and never should have been allowed to stop the wheels of government. Now if we can stop "holds" on appointments by unidentified Senators we can move forward.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Liberty is safest when government is incapable of moving.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If government stood still during WWI and WWII we would have no liberty. Government protects the food and drug quality, makes sure our money is not counterfeit, and allows  us to express our opinions. We have restrictions, I will never leave the U.S..

      replyreport
   4. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi William15. My concern is that Dems say they are "only breaking the filibuster for lower-court nominees." But they will do the same for Supreme Court nominees, ultimately..

      replyreport
   5. 83

      William15posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think your "slippery slope" argument holds much weight.  What makes you think they will ultimately do the same for Supreme Court nominees? And if they do, what makes you think Republicans wouldn't?

      replyreport
   6. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Republicans would do the same. My point is that nobody should be allowed to fast-track their nominees; it's not democratic.  As it stands now, the D.C. Circuit will have more liberal judges to hear challenges to Obama's climate-change propositions.

      replyreport
   7. 83

      William15posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I just don't think it's a "fast track". You still need a majority.  If the president is a Democrat and America has elected  a Democratic Senate, why shouldn't the judges be Democrats?

      replyreport
   8. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong... because before,  "Some people never even came to mind because of the background threat of the filibuster," Duke University professor Christopher Schroeder.
      Now nominees will simply be put through without discussion. That is not democracy.

      replyreport
   9. 83

      William15posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A majority of the Senate still has to confirm them. The people democratically elected those Senators to represent them. How is that undemocratic? Frankly, one person being able to stall what the majority wants seems undemocratic to me.

      replyreport
   10. 0

       savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The filibuster allowed the minority opinion to be heard. It was a safeguard-- a method for checks and balances, and not just for one person. The Senate now requires 51 votes, instead of 60. Big difference! Some nominees would not have received 60.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       While it is not law, candidates for high level positions, such as Supreme Court, are well vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The filibuster is just a deal-cutting time. You do not need a filibuster to do background checks. Just get busy.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Vetted, yes. But it won't matter. Are you really OK with a liberal Supreme Court which ignores precedents and statutory intent, in order to implement their "ideals." They see the Constitution as "living," meaning they can keep changing it. Dangerous.

       replyreport
   13. 83

       William15posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       So you don't have a problem with the law, but just with giving "liberals" more power?

       replyreport
   14. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Savvydating: If the constitution was not a changing document you would not be allowed to vote,  agencies such as the FDA, FCC, etc.  which maintain order and safety might not be here. The ability to change is a hallmark of the Constitution and the US

       replyreport
   15. 0

       savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Have you not read my responses? I have a problem with the law which  has been changed and which undermines the Constitution and our democracy. This is not a tennis match. I did not alter your words. Show me the same respect.

       replyreport
   16. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Savvydating, I point out that change is inevitable. Because you or I does not like a particular change does not mean the system is broken. It means that change is inevitable as circumstances and attitudes change, thus my comment about voting.

       replyreport
   17. 0

       savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Larry, one of my comments was directed to William (the one about respect) and the most recent to you. (Thought I should clarify) At any rate, I do appreciate your comments. They help me to research further.

       replyreport