Quick question

Submitted by Gabriel on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 12:19pm. Tags:

Politics

Remember back when the GOP controlled the Senate and they threatened the nuclear-option against the Dems using the filibuster? Had it gone through does anyone know if that means we would no longer have the filibuster in place?

Feel free to comment about the importance of 'be careful what you wish for'!

Personally I tend to think we should get rid of the filibuster. What do others think?
--

This place is my vacation.

Gabriel's blog
Login or register to post comments

Two points (#69614)

by Bird Dog on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 9:43am

First, the so-called nuclear option dealt with judicial appointments only, in keeping with the spirit of "advise and consent" in the Constitution. Two, whether you want to get rid of it or not is irrelevant. It has been a Senate rule since the 1840s and there is no groundswell to change or remove it.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

)

Heh. (#69627)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 1:03pm

I do so enjoy the fiction that this was somehow Constitutionally based, rather than a particularly blatant partisan ploy.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

Of course (#69630)

by Gabriel on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 1:14pm

STill, I don't want to get into why the Right thinks getting rid of the filibuster was a good idea but on the consequences had they been succesful.

This place is my vacation.

(

| parent )

I think it was "the Math." (#69633)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 1:18pm

This was supposed to be the Permanent Republican Majority, thanks to Diebold.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

Hahah I'd forgotten about "the Math" (#69636)

by Gabriel on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 1:22pm

Is it too much to wish that conservatives will just go away for a few years? The mess they have created will take so long to fix.

This place is my vacation.

(

| parent )

As I recall (#69625)

by Gabriel on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 12:55pm

from when the nuclear option was mentioned, if it had gone through its effect would have gone beyond just judicial nominations. Is that incorrect?

As for the groundswell you may want to start reading what the Lefty blogs are saying. After all the fact that it's been in place since the 1840s did not stop the GOP and most of the right-wing bloggers from threatening and encouraging the end of filibusters when it suited them. Already the GOP has turned to the filibister as its main legislative tool.

What do you think will happen if a Dem is elected in 2008 and the GOP starts stonewalling? The Dem base wants to overturn what the GOP has done as fast as possible.

Maybe the right-wingers should have thought it through when they started threatening to end filibusters and came so close to it. Once you open those doors they are almost impossible to close.

This place is my vacation.

(

| parent )

It was for judicial appointments only (#69661)

by Bird Dog on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 2:39pm

Frist had no intention of shutting down filibusters altogether (and he never made any such proposals), because he knew that the GOP may use this tool in the event they get voted into the minority. Democrats at the time had no intention of giving up any filibuster provisions, so it's hypocritical of them to be complaining about it, particularly now that the tables have turned.

The GOP has voted down cloture 63 times in this Congress, which is higher than 57 times in the prior one. The reason is that your sainted Harry Reid is taking a highly combative approach to legislation, including trying to defund Iraq and insert withdrawal timetables, among other things. The atmosphere in the Senate has gotten less collegial over the past year (just ask Arlen Specter), and the cloture votes reflect this environment.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

As I recall (#69662)

by Gabriel on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 2:51pm

back when this was discussed, because Frist's proposal required going against established procedures (even the Senate Parliamentarian, IIRC, weighed against) the impact was going to be much greater than just for judicial nominations.

So if a Dem wins the WH can we expect the GOP to avoid filibustering judicial nominees?

Not likely, heh?

This place is my vacation.

(

| parent )

Irrelevant (#69670)

by Bird Dog on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 3:55pm

The Gang of 14 is still there, which basically ended the Democrats' attempts to filibuster circuit court nominees.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

So if the GOP (#69672)

by Gabriel on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 3:59pm

starts filibustering Hillary's nominees we can expect you to protest?

This place is my vacation.

(

| parent )

The Dems reset the bar when it comes to... (#69679)

by Bird Dog on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 4:33pm

...filibustering circuit court nominees. For me, I'll defer to the Gang of 14. If they disband, I might say a few things about any fringies if they come down the pike. To be intellectually consistent about it, I won't go around urging filibusters on 'em.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

I guess. (#69773)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 12/10/2007 - 11:08pm

I can't see any real difference between the filibusters and the Anonymous Holds which far more strongly governed the process during the Clinton years.

Actually, the filibusters were in all likelihood more honest -- the cloture votes were (or weren't) there, and folks could see what was (and wasn't) happening. But both represented procedural moves to check the will of the President and majority. I happen to feel that the much larger number of vacancies created by the Repubs under Clinton was more damaging to the judiciary, but YMMV.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries