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.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39914
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.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm Posts: 13819 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.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
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.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39914
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.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39914
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%.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm Posts: 13819 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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 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