Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

The Levee's Gonna BreakFollow

#1 Nov 21 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Frustrated by GOP filibusters over judicial nominees which are 100% based on just not wanting Democratic appointed judges on the bench, the Senate is expected to vote today to change the rules. Filibusters will no longer be allowed on any executive appointment except for Supreme Court justices.

Assuming this vote goes through (and it's a rules change vote, 51 votes to clear) expect a whole bunch of backlogged appointments to go through. Judges, cabinet posts, etc. According to the White House's website, there's 186 nominations hanging out that haven't been voted on yet.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Nov 21 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Getting stuff done? Crazy.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#3 Nov 21 2013 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
That is so anti-american. You know, mom, apple pie, Jesus. (By Jesus, I am obviously referring to White Jesus, not that other, imaginary Jesus that brown people invented)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4 Nov 21 2013 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Fine, but when some Tea party nutter gets to be a judge with 51 votes in 2024 I don't want to hear any complaining.

This is why we can't have nice things. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5 Nov 21 2013 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Fine, but when some Tea party nutter gets to be a judge with 51 votes in 2024 I don't want to hear any complaining.

I've never been a fan of the filibuster. Should the above happen, I wouldn't be happy about it but I'd still recognize that it's better than a system where 41 senators can prevent the elected President from appointing anyone.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Nov 21 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
It does pretty well reduce the chance of us ever seeing a moderate or compromise candidate get put forward. Yay for more polarization? I'm not at all a fan of the over-use of the filibuster that's been happening, don't get me wrong. The system is in need of reform. I just don't think this is the best way to do it.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#7 Nov 21 2013 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move.
#8 Nov 21 2013 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Won't matter, the levee's dry anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#9 Nov 21 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
It does pretty well reduce the chance of us ever seeing a moderate or compromise candidate get put forward.

That wasn't happening now anyway.

The vacancies in the DC Circuit Court are unfilled because the GOP doesn't want ANY judges in there who would dilute its slim conservative bent. I suppose if Obama nominated Scalia's son or something they would let it pass but no "moderate" or "compromise" nominee was going to get the vote any more than nominating Nancy Pelosi to the spot.

Edit: Another primary example being the Consumer Protection Board where the GOP blocked any nominations in an attempt to cripple/kill the board, not because nominees were unqualified. Again, no "compromise" candidate was ever going to be allowed to take a spot because the filibuster wasn't about the nominees, it was about crippling a law they didn't like.

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 10:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Nov 21 2013 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
It does pretty well reduce the chance of us ever seeing a moderate or compromise candidate get put forward.

That wasn't happening now anyway.
So how do we make it happen?

Jophiel wrote:
The vacancies in the DC Circuit Court are unfilled because the GOP doesn't want ANY judges in there who would dilute its slim conservative bent. I suppose if Obama nominated Scalia's son or something they would let it pass but no "moderate" or "compromise" nominee was going to get the vote any more than nominating Nancy Pelosi to the spot.
Right they're misusing the system, I understand that, but the solution is as bad as the problem. You're replacing a pretty partisan impasse with partisan steamrolling.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#11 Nov 21 2013 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Seems more like blaming a symptom, to me.

The reality is that moderate, compromise candidates aren't going to get positions in general in a system that's this polarized. That might happen once the GOP finally just exiles the Tea Party and becomes more moderate in general, but it won't until then. A filibuster change isn't going to affect that.

But if it lets the gov't actually function in the meantime, I'm for it. Our process will continue to evolve anyway. And if we have a more moderate scenario, we have a situation in which the president might actually care about trying to win hearts on the other side of the aisle and nominate moderates.

Right now, just about anyone the president nominates is going to get blasted for purely partisan reasons that have nothing to do with their positions. So it's just not working.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#12 Nov 21 2013 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
the solution is as bad as the problem.

The problem isn't "Oh, people are being partisan" it's the inability of government to function because positions can't be filled.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Nov 21 2013 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Sidney Levee? He's been dead for like thirty years.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Nov 21 2013 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
the solution is as bad as the problem.

The problem isn't "Oh, people are being partisan" it's the inability of government to function because positions can't be filled.
If the problem is that positions are going unfilled then let's have in place a system to fill those jobs temporarily or something. I mean, can't you have an "acting" head of whatever until the problem gets resolved? Can't someone else at the EPA show up at conferences and sign off on stuff, or another less-senior judge within the district fill in until one is appointed? Heck, that might help push things along... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Nov 21 2013 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Filling important positions with temporary people is not a good solution.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#16 Nov 21 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Out of curiosity which positions are still unfilled anyway? Is there a list somewhere?

Sir Xsarus wrote:
Filling important positions with temporary people is not a good solution.
No, it isn't, it's an awful way of going about things, but so is naming a partisan to the head of a department. Last thing you need is for the first 2 years of any new administration to be spent dealing with the dismantling all the reforms the previous one put in place. You may make headway now, but you're only shooting yourself in the foot in the long run if you veer too far from the center.

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 9:38am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Nov 21 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Filling important positions with temporary people is not a good solution.
I have my doubts that there would be more success with hiring scabs temps, anyway.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Nov 21 2013 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Actually there is a process already to fill some positions with temporary appointees - recess appointments.

That always causes the opposing party to howl even louder.

#19 Nov 21 2013 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The White House link I gave earlier can be filtered to show Confirmed and Unconfirmed people and you can see what positions they were nominated for. That would give you a comprehensive list of every unfilled position with an outstanding nomination.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Nov 21 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The White House link I gave earlier can be filtered to show Confirmed and Unconfirmed people and you can see what positions they were nominated for. That would give you a comprehensive list of every unfilled position with an outstanding nomination.
Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#21 Nov 21 2013 at 12:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Political Wire wrote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pushed forward a vote to allow presidential nominations to go forward with a simple majority vote.

The vote was 52 to 48, mainly along party lines. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), David Pryor (D-AR) and Carl Levin (D-MI) voted against changing the rules.

Roll Call says the "new precedent represents what's likely to prove the most significant change in Senate rules since 1975, when the cloture threshold was reduced to 60 votes in most cases (from two-thirds of senators present and voting)."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Nov 21 2013 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
It does pretty well reduce the chance of us ever seeing a moderate or compromise candidate get put forward.

That wasn't happening now anyway.
So how do we make it happen?


Increase the number needed to defeat a filibuster. Decreasing it only makes the problem worse and creates a "winner take all" condition in politics.

The reason we're seeing log jams right now is because the number to overcome a filibuster is low enough that the Dems can get a far left appointee through if they can just get a few Republicans to jump ship. It's a potentially obtainable goal, and the value of having a hard core liberal in these positions far outweighs the downside of having to wait a long time with the position vacant along the way. Decreasing the number just means that whichever party is in power can simply put anyone in a position, no matter how hard core that person maybe and regardless of opposition (even legitimate opposition).

Increase the number back to say 66 (2/3rds) and it becomes an unobtainable obstacle with a partisan appointee. The result is that the party in power has to appoint moderate appointees that they can get at least some of the other party to agree to. IMO that's the right way to do this. The direction they went is only going to make things worse.

Quote:
Right they're misusing the system, I understand that, but the solution is as bad as the problem. You're replacing a pretty partisan impasse with partisan steamrolling.


Absolutely correct. This solution only works if we assume that partisan opposition is always "wrong" (or that the majority party is always right). But we have to assume that sometimes the other party has good reasons to oppose a given appointee. At the very least, if we agree that partisanship is "bad", then the question is whether it's only bad by the minority party. I think it's far worse when it's being used by the majority since they have the power to actually make things happen. I don't really have a problem when partisanship results in something *not* happening.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Nov 21 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But we have to assume that sometimes the other party has good reasons to oppose a given appointee.

Too bad these haven't been those times or else there might still be a filibuster option.

Not wanting to change the conservative composition of a court or trying to cripple a law you don't like aren't good reasons to oppose a nomination. There's no "moderate" appointee who is going to suddenly make the GOP change their mind on that when you make the threshold 99 votes.

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 5:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Nov 21 2013 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
It does pretty well reduce the chance of us ever seeing a moderate or compromise candidate get put forward.

That wasn't happening now anyway.
So how do we make it happen?


Increase the number needed to defeat a filibuster. Decreasing it only makes the problem worse and creates a "winner take all" condition in politics.

The reason we're seeing log jams right now is because the number to overcome a filibuster is low enough that the Dems can get a far left appointee through if they can just get a few Republicans to jump ship. It's a potentially obtainable goal, and the value of having a hard core liberal in these positions far outweighs the downside of having to wait a long time with the position vacant along the way. Decreasing the number just means that whichever party is in power can simply put anyone in a position, no matter how hard core that person maybe and regardless of opposition (even legitimate opposition).
no. the current backlog of nominees are overwhelmingly NOT hard-core liberals. nominations seem to be going through with partisan support.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Nov 21 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It does pretty well reduce the chance of us ever seeing a moderate or compromise candidate get put forward. Yay for more polarization? I'm not at all a fan of the over-use of the filibuster that's been happening, don't get me wrong. The system is in need of reform. I just don't think this is the best way to do it.


What would you propose instead?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Nov 21 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Samira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
It does pretty well reduce the chance of us ever seeing a moderate or compromise candidate get put forward. Yay for more polarization? I'm not at all a fan of the over-use of the filibuster that's been happening, don't get me wrong. The system is in need of reform. I just don't think this is the best way to do it.


What would you propose instead?


I'm ok with it. An appointee still has to pass through the senate with a majority vote. A far leaning candidate, regardless of sides, is going to have a hard time getting a 51% majority approval - especially when you're talking judicial appointments.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 259 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (259)