Nuclear option.

[JohnRoberts]

Sorry not about nuclear energy.

Harry Reid pulled the trigger on the "nuclear option" rules change in the senate to approve appointments with simple majority instead of super majority. The Republicans threatened to do this when they controlled the senate years ago but did not do it, because such rules changes can come back to bite you later when you inevitably lose control.

The administration has the right to name appointees but these MUST be approved by the legislature by law. Lowering the threshold for these approvals will make it easier for the WH to place even more partisan appointees into executive branch positions.

This reverses over 200 years of precedent for right to filibuster. Our republic has always been about majority rule but with the consent of the minority, otherwise we have a lynch mob, where simple majority riules. Our strength comes from a majority informed by the minority where all are represented in decision making.

Interesting times, this is getting pretty contentious.

JR

 

[dmp]

A litttle more backstory is important. When the Republicans made this threat under GWB, it was because Dems were opposing 8 Judicial appts out of 200+, that were considered extremely radical, if I recall correctly. The statistics from Republicans under OHB have been egregious, to the point of opposing completely agreeable legislation, most all appointments, etc... for the simple purpose of opposing any action.  Unfortunately, it seems the level of maturity and professional character has plunged.

Our republic has always been about majority rule but with the consent of the minority,

This is wrong. The minority does not have to consent to the majority rule, but the framework includes considerable protection of minority rights. Things happened under GWB that did not have the consent of Dems, while things have happened under OHB that did not have consent of the Repubs.

I'm not saying I think this rules change should happen, my disappointment is that people have been tolerating this behavior in their elected leaders.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Opinions vary about what is egregious and what is reasonable. I will not ague about opinions.

Our form of governance IMO is based on protecting individual rights and freedoms, not the execution of government force against minority citizens, especially when the majority is so slender.

But who knows maybe I'm wrong?  I just thought this change was newsworthy for any interested in the sausage making of governance like I am.

JR

 

[dmp]

Opinions vary about what is egregious and what is reasonable. I will not ague about opinions.

Observing the facts is important before making or arguing an opinion. I would like to observe the facts, whether they support my opinion or not.

An analogy just came to mind: imagine a classroom with 100 children in it. To decide what the class will do next, the children vote, and the majority decides. But before the children can vote, they need 60 children to vote to have a vote.
Now, suppose there are 45 children that hate school and don't want to do anything. They don't want to chose to read a book or build a Lincoln log cabin, or anything else, they are radically anti-school, and would rather sit and do nothing, and take pleasure in stopping anything happening in school. And their hope is that the school fails.

 

[hodad]

The problem, JR, is that your boys in the Senate have been egregiously abusing the filibuster.  Dems certainly used it a bit more under GWB, but the GOP has gone way beyond the pale in the last five years.  You've seen the numbers, I'm sure.  You probably know how many judicial vacancies there are as well--this is all about trying to keep reasonable though possibly left-leaning judges off the courts so that in the future (the GOP hopes) they can load even more activist Republican judges into the judiciary.  The GOP has done its damnedest to make this country's govt. nonfunctional, and to make the will of the minority override that of the majority.  At some point, enough is enough.  The games need to stop, the Senate Republicans need to put down their MAD magazines and act like the adults they purport to be and help run the country. 

This is all, 100%, on the GOP.  Write all those idiots you seem to be so fond of and tell them they're a bunch of childish morons.  Better yet, start voting for Democrats, because your guys are a bunch of worthless coprolites.   

 

[pucho812]

The filibuster is not listed anywhere in roberts rules of order that is used by both chambers to conduct government business.  The filibuster is at best allowed to happen by the people who are set in charge to conduct business. There is no reason for it to happen other then people allow it to. More over, the filibuster is not the end all be all when it comes to a resolution, bill, amendment, etc. The only reason people treat it as such as because they either do not care or do not want to take the time to do a work around per rules of order. 

Now as for one side using it all the time, lets remember when the other side was using it just as much while there was a gop majority in the senate.  I find it absurd that because one party is not getting their way on everything that they now have to change to rules just so they can get their way on everything. It's spoiled brat behavior. Now if there is a shift and the dems loose majority, are they going to break they very rules they are setting into place?

At best this sets a bad precedent 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Opinions vary about what is egregious and what is reasonable. I will not ague about opinions.

Observing the facts is important before making or arguing an opinion. I would like to observe the facts, whether they support my opinion or not.

An analogy just came to mind: imagine a classroom with 100 children in it. To decide what the class will do next, the children vote, and the majority decides. But before the children can vote, they need 60 children to vote to have a vote.
Now, suppose there are 45 children that hate school and don't want to do anything. They don't want to chose to read a book or build a Lincoln log cabin, or anything else, they are radically anti-school, and would rather sit and do nothing, and take pleasure in stopping anything happening in school. And their hope is that the school fails.

I appreciate your attempt to be literary while classrooms do not generally let students decide what to do next. The "Lord of the Flies" was a literary example of how that could turn out. 

======

Back on topic this is just evidence of how partisan the president is. he makes speeches and even arranges photo ops claiming to be open to suggestions from the opposition, while routinely dismissing their every advice. Remarkably he is still blaming the Republicans for the morass the economy is in. It's like the only hammer in his toolbox is campaigning for office where you naturally attack the opposition, but he just never stopped, even now when he can't run for office again. President Clinton is a stark contrast of how to "lead" with divided government. While I have no love for Clinton he actually worked with the opposition and accomplished things on a bi-partisan basis.
==========

It is the job of elected legislators to represent the people who elected them and believe it or not, the entire country is not singing the same one note politics that the white house is pushing. If they blocked so many presidential appointments, perhaps it was because so many of those appointments were unacceptable. The games he played with loading up the NRLB, making recess appointments when congress wasn't really in recess is more evidence of the partisan shenanigans.

Our government was designed with all this friction in it, on purpose. Our founders were fearful of too much concentration of power, for good reason. There needs to be a give and take, and mutual ownership of major programs that change the country. We are just now starting to experience the result of one party rule as the ACA passed without one republican vote takes effect next year. There will be more revealed about this landmark legislation in the coming months and next year. The insurance companies need to set rates for 2015 by next spring and there is only $25B in the kitty to bail out the insurance companies that are unprofitable. There is recent talk to increase this bail out fund that comes from charging each insurance buyer a $63 tax. So at a minimum that per user tax will have to increase.   

------

The filibuster has served us well for over two centuries, and what some are missing, the design of our government is not intended to make it easy to pass legislation. It is supposed to be hard, again on purpose, to prevent over reach by one side or the other.

Of course one man's opinion....and contrary to what Oprah tells the BBC white people (like me) who oppose Obama's policies are not opposing them because of racism, it's because his policies are flawed.

JR

 

[hodad]

The filibuster has served us well for over two centuries, and what some are missing, the design of our government is not intended to make it easy to pass legislation.
JR

Guess what?  They didn't lift the filibuster on legislation.  This is about 93 unfilled federal judgeships--even Supreme Court nominees can still be filibustered.  The nominated judges that I know of that have been filibustered are more than qualified and well respected within the legal profession.  This is not about legislation--it's about GOP obstructionism, and their desire to weigh down the judiciary with right-wing activist judges.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The filibuster has served us well for over two centuries, and what some are missing, the design of our government is not intended to make it easy to pass legislation.
JR

Guess what?  They didn't lift the filibuster on legislation.  This is about 93 unfilled federal judgeships--even Supreme Court nominees can still be filibustered.  The nominated judges that I know of that have been filibustered are more than qualified and well respected within the legal profession.  This is not about legislation--it's about GOP obstructionism, and their desire to weigh down the judiciary with right-wing activist judges.

Ok allow me to re-phrase. Our government was designed to make it more difficult to express federal (central) government force, be it legislation, be it judicial, or executive branch appointments. All different facets of the same thing.

Not to get too far off in the weeds I have heard questions raised about the need for this many new judges, but I won't even dispute that. What I do object to is the increasing judicial activism where judges legislate from the bench, some recent examples in CA where publicly voted referendums get reversed by the courts. (I don't even mind that if the referendum was unconstitutional, but if it was, why was it on the ballot?)

It is a benefit of being the party in power to make a more lasting difference with judicial appointments. This would not be so important if judges stuck to their knitting and just ruled on simple interpretation of laws, but some see the judiciary as another vehicle of change . IMO that is what legislation is for...

I find it difficult to know and argue about motives. I do not see it as mindless obstruction when the other side is so overtly partisan about stacking the decks whenever and wherever they can. Note: both sides do try to do this, and both sides in opposition resist this. 

JR 

 

[living sounds]

There have been some pretty striking examples of judicial activism by the conservative majority of the US supreme court in recent years...

But it's a none sequitor, this move was about overcoming (destructive) opposition based on principle, not about (constructive) opposition based on substance.

In the future it may ultimately reap disastrous consequences or it may prove a smart and lucky choice, but right now it looks like a reasonable course of action - given the circumstances.

 

[hodad]

(I don't even mind that if the referendum was unconstitutional, but if it was, why was it on the ballot?)

JR

Remember the line item veto?  Congress passed it, Clinton signed it even though he said it was unconstitutional.  He used it once, the Supreme Court called it unconstitutional.  Not leaving it to courts to decide constitutionality (at least when there's a potential grey area) is sort of the flip side of legislating from the bench--judging from the legislature. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

There have been some pretty striking examples of judicial activism by the conservative majority of the US supreme court in recent years...

But it's a none sequitor, this move was about overcoming (destructive) opposition based on principle, not about (constructive) opposition based on substance.

In the future it may ultimately reap disastrous consequences or it may prove a smart and lucky choice, but right now it looks like a reasonable course of action - given the circumstances.

Constructive or destructive seems informed by personal ideology.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

(I don't even mind that if the referendum was unconstitutional, but if it was, why was it on the ballot?)

JR

Remember the line item veto?  Congress passed it, Clinton signed it even though he said it was unconstitutional.  He used it once, the Supreme Court called it unconstitutional.  Not leaving it to courts to decide constitutionality (at least when there's a potential grey area) is sort of the flip side of legislating from the bench--judging from the legislature.

OK, I see your point.

I need to go back and revisit that case, my sense at the time was that the judicial ruling was more unconstitutional than the referendum, but i guess opinions vary and I am no judge (thankfully).  If I don't have something better to do with my time I'll go back  and dig this up. Right now I have stuff to do. 

JR

 

[living sounds]

Constructive or destructive seems informed by personal ideology.

JR

Well, in this case there were no objections uttered by the Republicans to the judges based on substance. So it follows that refusing to confirm them (as is the Senator's job) can not be called "constructive" behaviour, doesn't it?

The inflationary use of the filibuster as well as several other objective indicators (especially regarding the House rather than the Senate) paint a pretty clear picture. It comes down to that whatever Obama wants Republicans will oppose, and is rooted in legislator's fear of getting "primaryed" (or however this is spelled).

What it ultimately comes down to is minority rule for the nutwing of the GOP. Oh well.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Constructive or destructive seems informed by personal ideology.

JR

Well, in this case there were no objections uttered by the Republicans to the judges based on substance. So it follows that refusing to confirm them (as is the Senator's job) can not be called "constructive" behaviour, doesn't it?

The inflationary use of the filibuster as well as several other objective indicators (especially regarding the House rather than the Senate) paint a pretty clear picture. It comes down to that whatever Obama wants Republicans will oppose, and is rooted in legislator's fear of getting "primaryed" (or however this is spelled).

What it ultimately comes down to is minority rule for the nutwing of the GOP. Oh well.

The tea party fraction may appear to have disproportionate control over the republican side but IIRC it only takes one senator to force several different senate actions. In the house it is slightly different numbers game.

If it looks like the minority is ruling, how come we have the ACA and tax increases, regulatory expansion, and huge spending and debt... While the sequester that nobody though would ever really happen did, so the rate of spending increase has slowed marginally.

Of course maybe I'm wrong..and just don't understand what I see and hear. 

JR

PS: I am not above giving the administration an attaboy when they accomplish something positive and the negotiated status of forces agreement in Afghanistan looks like maybe they learned something from the too early complete withdrawal from Iraq and decline in security there since. While I still see Afghanistan being a black hole for money for the foreseeable future, having a presence in the region is better than not (my personal opinion, while I prefer a small military foot print, not nation building, that can not survive the reality on the ground.) 

For another interesting tidbit from that region there is a public debate going on about whether radicals killing and being killed by soldiers qualifies either for martyrdom?  This is actually an important discussion since the jihad (holy war) is authorizing the overthrow of some entire countries and justified by religious leaders. No matter what we believe about afterlife, these folks take it seriously enough to commit suicide attacks based on that belief. If the religious leaders say never mind, that could change everything, while I doubt it will be that easy. Humans take too much pleasure from killing people they don't like.

 

[hodad]

If it looks like the minority is ruling, how come we have the ACA and tax increases, regulatory expansion, and huge spending and debt... While the sequester that nobody though would ever really happen did, so the rate of spending increase has slowed marginally.

I think the ACA got through because there were a lot of traditional GOP allies (big business types) who wanted to see it, or something like it, get passed. (Remember, it's originally a Republican plan anyway.)  Once the insurance companies were guaranteed their big slice of the pie, it all went through.  In the recent shutdown showdown, the C of C (notoriously conservative and big business) actually opposed the Tea Party shenanigans, and in somewhat grudging terms supported the ACA. 

And the tax increases could have been more significant if the Bush tax cuts had simply been allowed to expire.  Or if capital gains were taxed the same (or even similarly to) earned income. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

If it looks like the minority is ruling, how come we have the ACA and tax increases, regulatory expansion, and huge spending and debt... While the sequester that nobody though would ever really happen did, so the rate of spending increase has slowed marginally.

I think the ACA got through because there were a lot of traditional GOP allies (big business types) who wanted to see it, or something like it, get passed. (Remember, it's originally a Republican plan anyway.) 

huh? it was passed by a straight party line vote. Lawyers, and big insurance, and big hospitals were on board for the crony capitalism. As I already mentioned the insurance companies were promised a $25B slush fund, so they couldn't lose money, but now some are questioning if that is enough.

I really don't care for "this is originally a Republican plan" talking point. I guess it will be George Bush's fault when the ACA implodes.

Once the insurance companies were guaranteed their big slice of the pie, it all went through.  In the recent shutdown showdown, the C of C (notoriously conservative and big business) actually opposed the Tea Party shenanigans, and in somewhat grudging terms supported the ACA. 

According to google C of C is College of Charleston? I suspect there was even more big business buy in than that. Don't forget the big drug companies that now get an expanded market for their boner medicine and chronic sugar/cholesterol management drugs.

But this was passed because the left has wanted this for a very long time, and found themselves with the majority in both houses , including a supermajority in the senate until kennedy died. When they needed to pass the revised senate version of the bill and didn't have the 60 votes needed, they passed it as a budget reconciliation with only a simple majority. More rules funny business..

Don't blame this on the Republicans. 

And the tax increases could have been more significant if the Bush tax cuts had simply been allowed to expire.  Or if capital gains were taxed the same (or even similarly to) earned income.

They are currently talking tax reform but it sounds like just another money grab. There are fair arguments that we shouldn't tax businesses at all, since they just pass those taxes along to customers with higher prices. Taxing capital gains and dividends is double taxation, since I already paid taxes first earning the money that i then invested. Lowering taxes on business with create far more jobs than increasing taxes on them. Note regulation: is another tax on business and that cost gets paid by consumers too. While I do not argue for zero regulation, just zero business taxes and less regulation.

I appreciate that government needs money from us tax payers to perform their necessary mission, and it is our duty to provide that. I do not see the ever increasing entitlements programs, and expanding government into even more of the private sector as a necessary mission.

JR

 

[hodad]

Chamber of Commerce. 

Are you sure you're a Republican?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Chamber of Commerce. 

Are you sure you're a Republican?

Apparently not a stereotypical one... Google isn't either...  8) I generally vote republican as the lesser evil but they are badly flawed too. I think there is something in the water in DC that corrupts normal people who spend any time there (actually it's all the money).

JR

PS I was opposed to the shut down too, while sympathetic to the sentiment. I did not expect it to be good use of political capital when all we had to do is wait for the slow moving train wreck to hit.  I do not oppose the return to constitutional roots embraced by the tea party, but I am not much of a joiner.

 

[Scodiddly]

The problem with the filibuster was that it wasn't even a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington thing anymore. Aside from a few grandstanding events, the vast bulk of the filibusters have been something apparently about as easy as putting a hold on a book at the library.

And yeah, I would say that Republicans have been abusing the filibuster.