Good analysis. Graham has put himself in a very difficult spot. I don't think conservatives trust him but are supporting him now because they need his position as Judiciary chair and vote to get through another SC Justice. His recent comments that he will fill the seat I'm sure is music to the SC Conservatives but it does remind people of how untrustworthy he is. Even if I was a Conservative in SC I would be worried that if Biden wins Graham does a 180 and starts supporting his good buddy Joe Biden on a lot of things. I don't know enough about SC to know if there is enough of a black vote along with people just sick of Graham to vote against him or just sit out the election but if was Graham's campaign manager I would be very very uneasy.
Yeah , and as soon as those new rules don't suit your fancy you'll want to change them too. Or you'll be screaming like a stuck hog when the other side uses your own changes against you. See "The Nuclear Option" A gift from Senator Harry Reid ...
I will state again how important of a reminder winning the Senate is. I will say again that winning the Senate is as important as winning the Presidency if you want to see any sort of structural change.
Was doing away with the Filibuster a terrible idea? How many judges that would have been denied seated because of what Ried did? Would democrats rely on the Filibuster to deny appointments like the Republicans did? What's the plus minus?
Gosh, maybe if you told the truth and did what you said you would do then all that money and negative ads by your opponent would not affect you because you would have done the right thing in the first place................Please Lord, let this man lose the election.....Amen
Doing away the filibuster on appointments meant that the minority party couldn't slow down appointments and confirmations were made on a simple majority. The Democrats did this in regard to frustration over McConnell on Obama appointments. What it ended up doing was that once the GOP took the majority McConnell still held up Obama appointments, using the power of the majority, and by the time Trump came into office rammed through appointments on simple majority even unqualified ones. Yes the Democrats did use the filibuster against appointments when GW Bush was President. That was when the "nuclear option" was first floated but wasn't implemented until the Democrats had the majority.
Interesting. And this is why I think people will flip against Trump. I some point people will start thinking what am I actually getting from Trump and some will be jealous of others who have actually gotten something. Also ego there will be a group who thinks they can do it better and will be plotting to gain more power. If people turned on Newt they can turn on Trump, it's human nature does anybody think the majority of Republicans are ok with past another 4 years or his family gaining more power? Human nature will ultimately prevail and jealousy will rear its ugly head. This little in fighting will help and Gaetz is the type of guy who has designs of having Trump like power himself. Like always at some point people start asking what's in it for me.
I understand all of that but it still does not answer the question of would Dems be further behind if they did not get rid of the filibuster, how many seats did they get to fill as opposed to what Republicans are filling. And we know Dems don't have the stomach to just deny appointments like the Republicans did. What's the net negative or positive?
Obviously it's difficult to consider the alternate reality of how things would be if they hadn't gotten rid of the filibuster. I think there is a good argument that nothing would change since the Republican Senate took it a step further by removing the filibuster on USSC confirmations. My own view is that if we had kept the rules of the Senate as they were in 15 years ago we would've seen more compromise. Democrats certainly wouldn't have gotten most of their ways but the tools of the minority would've allowed them to slow things down and likely gotten some changes, or at least slow things enough the last four years to make sure that some of these unqualified judges being run through on party like votes got further vetting and force the majority to make some more qualified appointments. Also in the context of the current debates I am laying blame on the Democrats but the Republicans deserve more blame. As the minority they abused the filibuster power on a record scale, as majority they've abused majority power, and the most damning is changing the rules on USSC appointment and then changing them again when it didn't suit them. My arguments against things like stacking the court and doing away with the filibuster aren't based on partisanship but philosophy. In this regard I am a very small 'c' conservative in that I firmly believe that changes of this nature for short term political gains are more damaging in the long run.
I don't see how you think we would have gotten more compromise, there is no evidence to back that up especially in the time of Trump. I would usually agree with you about those changes but you can only get kicked in the teeth so much before you realize the rules have changed.
It's a chicken and the egg problem. Did changing the rules lead to more partisanship or did partisanship lead to changing the rules? I'll be honest that I don't know for sure but recent history I think has born out that particularly from the Democratic side changing the rules haven't benefitted them. As said I'm going to by philosophy and especially the philosophy as it was set out by people like Hamilton and Madison that the nature of our government is meant to force compromise and protect the opinions of the minority. As such I believe that with the obvious very large exception of the Civil War our country has weathered many things while also changing and evolving. Certainly much slower than many would like. This is my honest belief that that changing the rules in the Senate and particularly on how USSC Justices are appointed is pushing us closer to civil war. This isn't to say that stacking the courts would be the trigger or the nuclear option. I will say that how Merrick Garland was treated and now how Ginsburg's seat is being treated play a large role in this but that isn't the only factor. I think the response and counter response of "you changed this" so we're going to "change this" has eroded comity and led to more divisiveness. It's why every side feels like they are the one's being oppressed and are being fueled by resentment.
Victim blaming - Harry Reid is the real enemy here, if you buy the line that McConnell would have excercised his well known restraint.. Obviously he would and he has gone much further. At least Harry got a few appointments through and we now still control the DC circuit which is critical.
^with no evidence in support thereof, had we trusted the better angels of Mitch McConnell's nature, we'd be better off. Nobody who studies this actually believes this. Maybe Chris Dodd does, lol.
I won't disagree but this is due to Mitch "we will make Obama a one term president" McConnell. GOP Congress literally sabotaged the economy with their "austerity".
