The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Fri November 22, 2013 3:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30227
higher stakes/higher threshold

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Fri November 22, 2013 3:40 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Posts: 47826
Location: Sector 7-G
Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Fri November 22, 2013 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30227
it'd be nice if this turned into a debate about finally establishing term limits for justices, but it won't

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Fri November 22, 2013 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 8515
Location: An office full of assholes
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.


The DC Circuit is pretty powerful.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Fri November 22, 2013 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Posts: 47826
Location: Sector 7-G
Chris_H_2 wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.


The DC Circuit is pretty powerful.

As powerful as the Supreme Court?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Fri November 22, 2013 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 8515
Location: An office full of assholes
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.


The DC Circuit is pretty powerful.

As powerful as the Supreme Court?


It's where most justices on the S. Ct. come from. It's why there's so much hub bub surrounding the DC Circuit that led to the nuclear option.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Sun November 24, 2013 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30227
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Listen, you're preaching to the converted on giving deference to a president's nomination so long as the person is (a) qualified, and (b) not a serial killer. The problem with both parties is that members have taken it upon themselves to define a person's qualifications based on their ideologies, and have tried to administer a litmus test to demonstrate that the nominee is "out of touch" or "too far to the [left or right]." I think it's despicable.

At the same time, I also see what's going on with the recent fights and, in particular, the opportunity that the Democrats see to facilitate the White House's agenda of legislating by regulation. Hence, the focus on the DC Circuit. Frankly, I think the matter is overblown.
So do you think that there's any time when a procedural supermajority is proper?


I think it was proper as was. It was originally to be used as a shield to avoid getting railroaded by a simple majority.


But it was not intended to be a vehicle for negating the results of elections. Filibustering a particularly odious nominee is one thing. Filibustering the idea of appointing any nominee is something else.

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Sun November 24, 2013 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 8515
Location: An office full of assholes
stip wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Listen, you're preaching to the converted on giving deference to a president's nomination so long as the person is (a) qualified, and (b) not a serial killer. The problem with both parties is that members have taken it upon themselves to define a person's qualifications based on their ideologies, and have tried to administer a litmus test to demonstrate that the nominee is "out of touch" or "too far to the [left or right]." I think it's despicable.

At the same time, I also see what's going on with the recent fights and, in particular, the opportunity that the Democrats see to facilitate the White House's agenda of legislating by regulation. Hence, the focus on the DC Circuit. Frankly, I think the matter is overblown.
So do you think that there's any time when a procedural supermajority is proper?


I think it was proper as was. It was originally to be used as a shield to avoid getting railroaded by a simple majority.


But it was not intended to be a vehicle for negating the results of elections. Filibustering a particularly odious nominee is one thing. Filibustering the idea of appointing any nominee is something else.


There's nothing new about the Republicans are doing. Democrats and Republicans do the same thing. It's the reason that Obama, when he was the junior senator from Illinois, railed against the idea of changing the rules. It's also the reason that Reid said he would never do it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Sun November 24, 2013 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 5419
Chris_H_2 wrote:
There's nothing new about the Republicans are doing. Democrats and Republicans do the same thing. It's the reason that Obama, when he was the junior senator from Illinois, railed against the idea of changing the rules. It's also the reason that Reid said he would never do it.
I think it's still a bad rule regardless if it's been around for a while or if both sides do it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Mon November 25, 2013 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30227
Chris_H_2 wrote:
stip wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Listen, you're preaching to the converted on giving deference to a president's nomination so long as the person is (a) qualified, and (b) not a serial killer. The problem with both parties is that members have taken it upon themselves to define a person's qualifications based on their ideologies, and have tried to administer a litmus test to demonstrate that the nominee is "out of touch" or "too far to the [left or right]." I think it's despicable.

At the same time, I also see what's going on with the recent fights and, in particular, the opportunity that the Democrats see to facilitate the White House's agenda of legislating by regulation. Hence, the focus on the DC Circuit. Frankly, I think the matter is overblown.
So do you think that there's any time when a procedural supermajority is proper?


I think it was proper as was. It was originally to be used as a shield to avoid getting railroaded by a simple majority.


But it was not intended to be a vehicle for negating the results of elections. Filibustering a particularly odious nominee is one thing. Filibustering the idea of appointing any nominee is something else.


There's nothing new about the Republicans are doing. Democrats and Republicans do the same thing. It's the reason that Obama, when he was the junior senator from Illinois, railed against the idea of changing the rules. It's also the reason that Reid said he would never do it.


This is pretty new, actually. Both in terms of the size and scope of what is happening. This goes beyond partisanship into the basic nullification of democratic rule.

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Fri December 06, 2013 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30227
Fun fact. This may have shifted slightly, and of course the politics probably would not align directly like this, but the smallest 21 states make up 11% of the countries population and have the ability, via fillibuster, to thwart the will of the other 89%.

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supermajorities
PostPosted: Mon December 09, 2013 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 8515
Location: An office full of assholes
stip wrote:
Fun fact. This may have shifted slightly, and of course the politics probably would not align directly like this, but the smallest 21 states make up 11% of the countries population and have the ability, via fillibuster, to thwart the will of the other 89%.


I suppose that you're equating the ideologies of certain members of Congress with the "will" of their constituents, no?


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Tue February 20, 2018 6:07 am