|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:50 am Post subject: Senate Goes Kaboom |
|
|
52-48
After years of threats to do 'something', Harry finally pulled the trigger.
Here's how it happened. First Democrats called for a simple-majority vote to move to reconsider the failed nomination of Patricia Millett, which passed 57-40. Then McConnell scrambled to head off the rules change by calling for a motion to adjourn the Senate until 5 p.m on Thursday. That vote failed, 46-54. Then Democrats moved to reconsider the Millett nomination, which had to be at a 60-vote threshold, and Republicans filibustered her again, 57-43.
At that point, Reid took the historic step of raising a point of order that when the Senate votes on cloture again, the threshold should be at a simple majority. Under standing rules, the presiding offer ruled that motion out of order. Reid then appealed the ruling, and a majority of senators (52 -- all Democrats) voted against upholding the filibuster. The vote was 48 to keep the filibuster, 52 to scrap it. That historic vote created a new precedent by which a simple majority may bypass cloture on nominations.
The presiding officer, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), made clear after the vote that the new precedent set does not apply to Supreme Court nominees.
McConnell then made an attempt to overturn the nuclear option vote, which failed 48-52.
Earlier this summer, during the previous filibuster fight that ended without a rules change, the Republican leader warned that if Reid ends the filibuster for nominations, he would end the filibuster for everything, including legislation, if he becomes majority leader.
It's about time, and if Mitch ever gets the chance to carry out his threat, I hope he follows through. The filibuster has been an anti-democratic tool all along. One senator, elected from one state, should not be able to block the will of the majority. (At least when a president vetoes a bill he was elected by a majority of the nation.)
It's too bad something couldn't have been done about life-time appointments of judges while they were at it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lithium

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It appears Dingy Harry smells defeat in his future. Once all of the companies start dropping people's health insurance due to Obama's boondoggle, the democrats will lose their majority during the mid-terms. This is the only hope to save America from a European socialist transformation. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to Rachel, there are 390 judges appointed by Republicans and 390 appointed by Dems, with 93 vacancies. One of the constitutional powers of a president, any president, is to fill those vacancies that happen to occur during his administration. In the history of the Republic 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, presidents #1-43 had 86 blocked; #44 has had 82. This has been government by minority nullification--the tyranny of the minority. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007 Location: Any place I'm at
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Ermmm...I don't follow that at all.
The Dems just ensured a simple majority in the Senate will be able to confirm judicial and executive appointments. Won't that make it easier for Dems to transform America into a European socialist state before they lose their majority next year? |
The government doesn't need to do it, the people are already starting to do it for them.
Quote: |
Socialist Alternative candidate Kshama Sawant has been pronounced the winner in City Council elections in Seattle, Washington held earlier this month. The longtime incumbent, Democrat Richard Conlin, conceded defeat late last week after revised vote totals showed Sawant leading by 88,222 votes to 86,582.
The victory of Sawant—and the near-win of another Socialist Alternative City Council candidate, Ty Moore, in Minneapolis, Minnesota—reflects growing popular alienation from the Democrats and Republicans. |
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/20/sawa-n20.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System
|
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
This site really needs gifs. Could have slapped up Billy Mays' mug on this thread. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
According to Rachel, there are 390 judges appointed by Republicans and 390 appointed by Dems, with 93 vacancies. One of the constitutional powers of a president, any president, is to fill those vacancies that happen to occur during his administration. In the history of the Republic 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, presidents #1-43 had 86 blocked; #44 has had 82. This has been government by minority nullification--the tyranny of the minority. |
Come on Kuros, if you're gonna get all bothered about the improper use of tyranny in that other thread then please have the courtesy to nag at ya-ta too. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
actionjackson wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Ermmm...I don't follow that at all.
The Dems just ensured a simple majority in the Senate will be able to confirm judicial and executive appointments. Won't that make it easier for Dems to transform America into a European socialist state before they lose their majority next year? |
The government doesn't need to do it, the people are already starting to do it for them.
Quote: |
Socialist Alternative candidate Kshama Sawant has been pronounced the winner in City Council elections in Seattle, Washington held earlier this month. The longtime incumbent, Democrat Richard Conlin, conceded defeat late last week after revised vote totals showed Sawant leading by 88,222 votes to 86,582.
The victory of Sawant—and the near-win of another Socialist Alternative City Council candidate, Ty Moore, in Minneapolis, Minnesota—reflects growing popular alienation from the Democrats and Republicans. |
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/20/sawa-n20.html |
It looks to me as if the people had better hurry up. There are 289 American cities with over 100,000 population and the Socialists have just won one seat on one city council--by defeating one of their secret allies. And they just have one year to go before the mid-terms next Nov.
Just imagine the fear and trembling that would ensue if that candidate in Minneapolis had swept to victory for a total of two (2
) socialists in office. A veritable tsunami. You'd be able to see the European socialist transformation of America from every front porch in the country...if not from under the beds. Yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Titus wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
According to Rachel, there are 390 judges appointed by Republicans and 390 appointed by Dems, with 93 vacancies. One of the constitutional powers of a president, any president, is to fill those vacancies that happen to occur during his administration. In the history of the Republic 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, presidents #1-43 had 86 blocked; #44 has had 82. This has been government by minority nullification--the tyranny of the minority. |
Come on Kuros, if you're gonna get all bothered about the improper use of tyranny in that other thread then please have the courtesy to nag at ya-ta too. |
Sorry, it appears 'tyranny of the minority' is an alternative phrasing for the word minoritarianism.
Quote: |
Minoritarianism is a neologism for a political structure or process in which a minority segment of a population has a certain degree of primacy in that entity's decision making.
Minoritarianism or more commonly, the tyranny of the minority, is most often applied disparagingly to processes in which a minority is able to block legislative changes through supermajority threshold requirements. For example, if a 2/3 vote in favor is required to enact a new law, a minority of greater than 1/3 is said to have "minoritarian" powers. |
I will allow it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two things:
1. Wouldn't it be relatively easy for the Senate to go into session on Election Day '14 and return the Senate rules to the status quo ante? The Dems would have made their point that it is only the recent abuse of the filibuster that has been a problem.
2. In one of the articles I've read on this issue (but I forget which one), the point was asserted that the ending of the filibuster for nominations will create an atmosphere of instability, since 'everyone' expects the GOP to now end the filibuster for all legislation. If that happens, nothing will stop the GOP from privatizing Social Security in 20XX and the Dems restoring it two years later and the Dems returning to the income tax rates of Eisenhower in 20XX and the GOP abolishing all federal taxes two years after that. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
2. In one of the articles I've read on this issue (but I forget which one), the point was asserted that the ending of the filibuster for nominations will create an atmosphere of instability, since 'everyone' expects the GOP to now end the filibuster for all legislation. If that happens, nothing will stop the GOP from privatizing Social Security in 20XX and the Dems restoring it two years later and the Dems returning to the income tax rates of Eisenhower in 20XX and the GOP abolishing all federal taxes two years after that. |
If Americans do not want Social Security privatized, they should not empower Republicans with simultaneous control over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and if Americans do not want Eisenhower tax rates, well, they needn't do anything at all, because neither party is pushing for that. The point is that neither of these extremes is being or should be kept in check by filibusters. If a party controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they should be able to enact their agenda within the bounds of the Constitution.
Filibusters should be severely restricted. Only talking filibusters of the traditional variety should be allowed at all. Yes, that means that the filibusterer need stand there, talking, as long as he wants to hold back the vote, and yes, that means that far from the current almost veto-like character of the "filibuster," that one's efforts will eventually falter. That should be the point: if there is absolutely nothing you can say which will stir public opinion against a piece of legislation so strongly that the majority reconsiders it, then you ought not to be filibustering in the first place. The same goes for appointments: if a potential appointee is so flawed that they must be blocked, then a filibuster gives all the time needed to explain why to the public.
At the same time, reducing membership on the Supreme Court to an eight or ten year term is probably a good idea though. There is absolutely no reason an unelected official should be appointed for life, and absent the potential to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, there is reasonable cause to make sure bad appointees do not linger. The Supreme Court should also be restricted by a code of conduct harsher than lesser judges. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
2. In one of the articles I've read on this issue (but I forget which one), the point was asserted that the ending of the filibuster for nominations will create an atmosphere of instability, since 'everyone' expects the GOP to now end the filibuster for all legislation. If that happens, nothing will stop the GOP from privatizing Social Security in 20XX and the Dems restoring it two years later and the Dems returning to the income tax rates of Eisenhower in 20XX and the GOP abolishing all federal taxes two years after that.
If Americans do not want Social Security privatized, they should not empower Republicans with simultaneous control over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and if Americans do not want Eisenhower tax rates, well, they needn't do anything at all, because neither party is pushing for that. The point is that neither of these extremes is being or should be kept in check by filibusters. If a party controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they should be able to enact their agenda within the bounds of the Constitution. |
I quite agree that an administration should be able to enact its agenda; that's a given. However, you mistook the random examples for the point. The point was: "since 'everyone' expects the GOP to now end the filibuster for all legislation. If that happens". If the GOP regains the majority in the Senate and if they follow through, then a period of instability is a real possibility.
Quote: |
Filibusters should be severely restricted... |
It would seem the Dems looked at what they perceive as abuse of the filibuster of judicial and executive branch nominees and decided the best way to handle the problem was 'all or nothing' and came down on the nothing side. Maybe they couldn't work out a way to only ban filibusters that are seen as abuses and keep it for extreme cases? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Senate already provides minoritarian protections. After all, each state receives two senators, no matter how few people live in that state. The Senate is the worst place to impose a supermajority requirement to debate on legislation (yes, a cloture vote can silence even debate). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
actionjackson wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Ermmm...I don't follow that at all.
The Dems just ensured a simple majority in the Senate will be able to confirm judicial and executive appointments. Won't that make it easier for Dems to transform America into a European socialist state before they lose their majority next year? |
The government doesn't need to do it, the people are already starting to do it for them.
Quote: |
Socialist Alternative candidate Kshama Sawant has been pronounced the winner in City Council elections in Seattle, Washington held earlier this month. The longtime incumbent, Democrat Richard Conlin, conceded defeat late last week after revised vote totals showed Sawant leading by 88,222 votes to 86,582.
The victory of Sawant—and the near-win of another Socialist Alternative City Council candidate, Ty Moore, in Minneapolis, Minnesota—reflects growing popular alienation from the Democrats and Republicans. |
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/20/sawa-n20.html |
It looks to me as if the people had better hurry up. There are 289 American cities with over 100,000 population and the Socialists have just won one seat on one city council--by defeating one of their secret allies. And they just have one year to go before the mid-terms next Nov.
Just imagine the fear and trembling that would ensue if that candidate in Minneapolis had swept to victory for a total of two (2
) socialists in office. A veritable tsunami. You'd be able to see the European socialist transformation of America from every front porch in the country...if not from under the beds. Yet. |
She's a Trotskyist and advocates nationalizing the 500 largest firms. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
She's a Trotskyist and advocates nationalizing the 500 largest firms. |
You write that as if it were a bad thing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
She's a Trotskyist and advocates nationalizing the 500 largest firms. |
You write that as if it were a bad thing. |
Why do people make such a big deal when I point out that mainline liberals are actually slow-moving communists? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|