|
patentmagus posted:I don't believe either party will do squat to get rid of the filibuster. I recall the republicans wanted to get rid of the filibuster maybe 10 years ago or so, but didn't follow through because they knew it would be their turn to use it soon enough. The democrats will talk loudly, but will leave it in place too. Couldn't that bill have a hard sunset, so it'd only be useful for 18 months?
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Not a bill. A change in the rules of the senate. Once gone, it's gone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:How much could Roberts feasibly water down liberal majorities by assigning them to himself? It's not something I understand in great detail. It has been done in the past, where a Chief Justice was hated for not voting until everyone else had, siding with the winning side, then assigning it to himself. What would actually happen though is that the five liberals would write and join a concurring opinion. They could if they wanted, then refuse to join Roberts' opinion making the concurring opinion the majority opinion, and his opinion essentially just a trivia question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
jetz0r posted:Couldn't that bill have a hard sunset, so it'd only be useful for 18 months? No because to do it you force through a rules change with a bare majority, so the Republicans could do it right back regardless of if the rules change sunsets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:If the Democrats take total control of the government, I hope that they would have learned enough from the Obama era to know to abolish the existing Filibuster and just go buckwild for the next two years. A liberal government without the SCOTUS to check it would be something to see. He'd still have to get them to agree to his watered down opinions They take a soft vote, then assign a writer. People can change and the ruling can change while the opinion is being drafted
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
The idea of the filibuster is good. The minority should have some measure of exerting some influence on matters they feel strongly about. However, the Republicans have abused it under Obama, using it on absolutely everything. It deserves to be junked, and I believe it will be the next time either party has the presidency and both houses of Congress (there's no point in the Senate rocking the boat if the House will just block everything, anyway). And filibusters for Supreme Court nominees will be eliminated the next time either party has both the presidency and the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The idea of the filibuster is good. The minority should have some measure of exerting some influence on matters they feel strongly about. And a seat comes up, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Lets face it, the only woman that's truly qualified to replace RGB is Beyonce. This one thing would make Obama the greatest president ever. No irony, no sarcasm, I seriously want this to happen now really badly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Isn't one of the big problems with the current filibuster that you don't even have to actually filibuster? All you have to do is basically say "I'm filibustering!"and occasionally show up and that's kind of it? Or am I confusing an exaggeration made by some comedian with reality?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Isn't one of the big problems with the current filibuster that you don't even have to actually filibuster? All you have to do is basically say "I'm filibustering!"and occasionally show up and that's kind of it? Or am I confusing an exaggeration made by some comedian with reality? It's no more of a problem then declaring Congress in Session by having 3 guys show up every day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Isn't one of the big problems with the current filibuster that you don't even have to actually filibuster? All you have to do is basically say "I'm filibustering!"and occasionally show up and that's kind of it? Or am I confusing an exaggeration made by some comedian with reality? No, that's not one of the problems with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
duz posted:No, that's not one of the problems with it. It's a boiled down version of it, i thought. Not exact but close. It is doing a good job of shifting perception in making folks think you need 2/3s to pass anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
duz posted:No, that's not one of the problems with it. It is a problem with it, because the old filibuster was practically limited by it needing to be important enough that someone wanted to waste their time sitting there blathering on and on. You wouldn't do it for some routine nominee who will get confirmed unanimously, but now, why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is a problem with it, because the old filibuster was practically limited by it needing to be important enough that someone wanted to waste their time sitting there blathering on and on. You wouldn't do it for some routine nominee who will get confirmed unanimously, but now, why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Doesn't an old filibuster basically shut down that house of the legislature? Like, could other things be passed while they blathered on? no. you can't put any motions up for a vote while someone is on the floor doing his thing, so unless they get him to leave they can't pass any legislation. it might be easier to get cloture votes if they're holding up something both sides want with their grandstanding though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Doesn't an old filibuster basically shut down that house of the legislature? Like, could other things be passed while they blathered on? That's why it was changed. There's too much that the Senate has to do on a regular basis that it couldn't afford to let itself get completely shut down by a filibuster - so it became a Doomsday Device, essentially. Something you could threaten to use, but never actually use. The cloture vote was a compromise to let the minority stall a particular bill without shutting everything down. The work of the Senate could continue while the parties involved negotiated a compromise to get the 60 votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That's why it was changed. There's too much that the Senate has to do on a regular basis that it couldn't afford to let itself get completely shut down by a filibuster - so it became a Doomsday Device, essentially. Something you could threaten to use, but never actually use. The problem, of course, is that these days they just seem to straight up take a cloture vote, and if it's not 60 votes just kill the matter, which turned filibuster from an extraordinary tactic to one that forces 60 votes for anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is a problem with it, because the old filibuster was practically limited by it needing to be important enough that someone wanted to waste their time sitting there blathering on and on. You wouldn't do it for some routine nominee who will get confirmed unanimously, but now, why not? I don't get why the Democrats just don't do this. Originally sixty votes (I think the original percentage was higher) was to cut off debate if people still wanted to talk. If no one wants to talk, can't the chair just rule that debate is over and proceed to the vote?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:There's too much that the Senate has to do on a regular basis that it couldn't afford to let itself get completely shut down
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
duz posted:No, that's not one of the problems with it. Surely you could drum up some conservative support for requiring speaking filibusters by comparing it to the Tribunal physical veto in Republican Rome 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Surely you could drum up some conservative support for requiring speaking filibusters by comparing it to the Tribunal physical veto in Republican Rome Senators could beat each other to death with table legs as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Senators could beat each other to death with table legs as well Who would be Caligula's horse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't get why the Democrats just don't do this. Originally sixty votes (I think the original percentage was higher) was to cut off debate if people still wanted to talk. If no one wants to talk, can't the chair just rule that debate is over and proceed to the vote? No, because motions to proceed are debatable, and because you need unanimous consent or cloture to cut off debate - the ruling you're talking about would effectively be an alternative form of the nuclear option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It looks like Mcconnel and Grasserly agreed to meet Obama at the WH. I did not think they would. Possible signal of a thaw. They're not going to budge. They're stuck on the train to crazy-town and can't get off if they want to. The meeting is/was a formality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
The Atlantic:"Obama offered to seriously consider candidates put forward by Republicans, but neither McConnell nor Grassley would name any." The majority leader and the judiciary committee chairman couldn't even name one single judge they'd consider for the supreme court when asked. You couldn't even bring a list of right wing nutjobs that you could blame Obama for refusing to nominate?  They're not even pretending to give a poo poo about running the country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:And a seat comes up, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Atlantic:"Obama offered to seriously consider candidates put forward by Republicans, but neither McConnell nor Grassley would name any." Honestly, making a big show out of holding your breath and shaking your head seems to be the dumbest play. Instead of just yelling NO and refusing to even talk about a nominee it seems like it would be much more platable to the public to just slow everything down to a crawl and simply vote against every single most liberal nominee ever that Obama puts up. He's not going to cave and nominate clone Scalia, so you get to block the President while still at least maintaining the fig leaf of productivity. Oh we want to fill this important seat but mean old Obama just keeps giving us unacceptable candidates. It seems like it's not only easier to sell but it also makes you look like you're actually blocking Obama. It's like a vote to repeal Obamacare that actually works!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, making a big show out of holding your breath and shaking your head seems to be the dumbest play. Instead of just yelling NO and refusing to even talk about a nominee it seems like it would be much more platable to the public to just slow everything down to a crawl and simply vote against every single most liberal nominee ever that Obama puts up. He's not going to cave and nominate clone Scalia, so you get to block the President while still at least maintaining the fig leaf of productivity. Oh we want to fill this important seat but mean old Obama just keeps giving us unacceptable candidates. Yeah I don't see how this isn't the way to do this. You get the same result but you look like you are participating in the process to the average person and you tell you nutso base you are defending against whatever craaaaazy super Marxist that Obama nominated. I think they just knee jerked into obstructionist mode while in grief over Scalia kicking it since it's all they know how to do and now they don't want to lose face by going back on their pledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, making a big show out of holding your breath and shaking your head seems to be the dumbest play. Instead of just yelling NO and refusing to even talk about a nominee it seems like it would be much more platable to the public to just slow everything down to a crawl and simply vote against every single most liberal nominee ever that Obama puts up. He's not going to cave and nominate clone Scalia, so you get to block the President while still at least maintaining the fig leaf of productivity. Oh we want to fill this important seat but mean old Obama just keeps giving us unacceptable candidates. Then you're in danger of Obama actually making a deal and getting the justice. About now, Obama just has to wait until Trump mathematically secures the nomination and then say in public "You can let me pick, or let a pinko socialist, evil war criminal Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump do it." As the general election comes into focus, McConnell's original play here will be less and less tenable. Even the idea of a brokered convention at the last minute looks like it isn't going to work, thanks to how the math worked out and all the GOP candidates hating each other too much to drop out and consolidate the anti-Trump vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, making a big show out of holding your breath and shaking your head seems to be the dumbest play. Instead of just yelling NO and refusing to even talk about a nominee it seems like it would be much more platable to the public to just slow everything down to a crawl and simply vote against every single most liberal nominee ever that Obama puts up. He's not going to cave and nominate clone Scalia, so you get to block the President while still at least maintaining the fig leaf of productivity. Oh we want to fill this important seat but mean old Obama just keeps giving us unacceptable candidates. This has the benefit of both blocking Obama and not forcing marginal GOP senators to make a vote that could either hurt them in the general or get them primary challenges, depending on which way it goes. I think general intransigence probably hurts them less than specific vulnerable people getting into trouble. It's also possible that they can't maintain party discipline enough to control things if it gets to a vote
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, making a big show out of holding your breath and shaking your head seems to be the dumbest play. Instead of just yelling NO and refusing to even talk about a nominee it seems like it would be much more platable to the public to just slow everything down to a crawl and simply vote against every single most liberal nominee ever that Obama puts up. He's not going to cave and nominate clone Scalia, so you get to block the President while still at least maintaining the fig leaf of productivity. Oh we want to fill this important seat but mean old Obama just keeps giving us unacceptable candidates. The Republican base doesn't trust their senators enough to go along with the ruse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
joe football posted:This has the benefit of both blocking Obama and not forcing marginal GOP senators to make a vote that could either hurt them in the general or get them primary challenges, depending on which way it goes. I think general intransigence probably hurts them less than specific vulnerable people getting into trouble. It's also possible that they can't maintain party discipline enough to control things if it gets to a vote PPP has polling on those vulnerable senators suggesting that the "no-hearings, no-vote" stance specifically is likely to hurt them- and that's even before a nomination has been made and paraded around, and potentially not even pushed back on because the GOP is going to be intent on "we're not voting out of principle" type poo poo. They really hosed up politically on this, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:As far as I know, the rules for the Senate are something that must be voted on by simple majority on the first day of the Senate session. The rules can't be changed on-the-fly after that. Of course, this time they know a SCOTUS seat will be up for grabs during the session, but that is not usually the case. That's just if you want to change a bunch at once. What Harry Reid did was asked what the rule was for nominating judges, then objected to the answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:PPP has polling on those vulnerable senators suggesting that the "no-hearings, no-vote" stance specifically is likely to hurt them- and that's even before a nomination has been made and paraded around, and potentially not even pushed back on because the GOP is going to be intent on "we're not voting out of principle" type poo poo. They know that. The problem is that "no hearings, no vote" in those same polls is very popular with Republicans. If they don't follow that line they run a real risk of being primaried from the right by someone who would use this as a stick to repeatedly beat them with in a primary campaign. It's pure self-interest, but it's a lose-lose for Republican senators in an election year. If they stonewall Obama, they win their primary but suffer in the general election. If they work with Obama, they get primaried and don't even make it to the general election. It's entirely possible these senators will change their tune once the primary threat is over. Or they'll start talking about how they want to hold a vote but McConnell won't let them. Either way, they can't start hedging their bets until after they've won their primary and that's not for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Anyone know when the latest primaries for Senator are over?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:They know that. The problem is that "no hearings, no vote" in those same polls is very popular with Republicans. If they don't follow that line they run a real risk of being primaried from the right by someone who would use this as a stick to repeatedly beat them with in a primary campaign. It's pure self-interest, but it's a lose-lose for Republican senators in an election year. If they stonewall Obama, they win their primary but suffer in the general election. If they work with Obama, they get primaried and don't even make it to the general election. It should also be noted that their gerrymandering has made it so that the primary is the de facto general in a lot of their house seats and the voters know that. What it means is that their primary base doesn't have to worry about any notion of electability or anything so they can just go as far to the right as they please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It should also be noted that their gerrymandering has made it so that the primary is the de facto general in a lot of their house seats and the voters know that. What it means is that their primary base doesn't have to worry about any notion of electability or anything so they can just go as far to the right as they please. This is true, but doesn't have much relevance for this particular case since the House has no say whatsoever over Supreme Court nominations and you can't gerrymander the Senate. It probably does affect the thinking of Republican primary voters who may have a harder time separating congressional from senatorial races, but the senators in question are very much under threat in the general election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
You don't Gerrymander the Senate, but you do Gerrymander at the state level and then suppress the poor/minority vote via the specter of Voter Fraud and that in turn helps push Senate races more in your party's favor. I hope Obama makes an announcement for a nominee soon. The recent meeting where Turtle and co were just dead weight will hopefully be brought up in any announcement as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
The Senate is inherently gerrymandered anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
You can gerrymander the Senate by changing state lines! It's the latest strategy. Pittsburgh is now split between Ohio, WV, and PA. Half of San Francisco belongs to a long skinny panhandle piece of Nevada. DC is... oh right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 18:34
|
|
