Sure - and Reid resisted changing the filibuster for the last 5 years. But ultimately, you have to have a functional body. As Obama said yesterday, in the last 60 years through 2008, 20 cabinet nominees had been filibustered. During Obama's Presidency, there have been 30. The situation is simply not the same as 2005, so the decision of what to do as a response changes. Comparing it to then ignores the reality of today. I ask again: what is Reid's alternative? In order to prevent the GOP from possibly running over them later, he should let do it for sure now? Should the new policy be that the minority party can arbitrarily decide not to allow any judges to be appointed? Or decide to not allow executive appts because they don't like the existence of an agency? And really, do you think if there was a GOP Majority and President in 2016, they would hesitate to change the rules if Democrats started filibustering like this? I'd point out that the GOP made the same threat in 2005 under much lesser obstruction and would have no issue doing so again in 2017 if Dems tried to do what the GOP is doing now.
Look at what I wrote, specifically: With the inception of the Senate "nuclear option" (to which Obama and other Democrats vehemently objected during 43's last term and to which Republicans currently object with equal vigor), perhaps one more Senate amendment may be in order. Major, rimrocker and others are trying to divert my question by arguing the history and meaning of the filibuster. Although I would be vehemently opposed to removing federal judges so easily, i.e., by a simple majority vote by the Senate, I am equally appalled by Obama and Reid's changing rules written by Thomas Jefferson that have served us well for more than 200 years. Again, SINCE (rather than IF) we can change Senate rules for seating judges so easily, perhaps the rules for unseating them should be made just as easy. That is the question the nuclear option now begs.
Please, let us know what rule specifically you are referring to. I'm curious to learn about your alternative version of US history.
Good info from a good senator... <div style='text-align:center'> <script type='text/javascript' src='http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=281&width=560&height=450&playList=517659438'></script> <br/>
Reid wasn't in power to change the filibuster for 15 years. I agree the Republicans have used the filibuster unprecedentedly and irresponsibly but as previous episodes show there were ways around it and several senators on both sides who have repeatedly worked to resolve impasses. As stated above there were several senators willing work on compromises that resolve the situation. Granted this situation keeps on cropping up but the nature of the Senate is to deliberate. Frankly I suspect Reid went forward with this now largely because he saw how much damage the shutdown caused the GOP and figured that it would be better to run roughshod over them than continue negotiating. The GOP probably will change the rules since they've said so already and since Democrats have set the precedent to change the rules. This is why I said in 2005 and say now that the nuclear option is very shortsighted thinking on the part of the majority party. It pretty much guarantees that when the tables turn tools like that will be used against you.
The Senate doesn't seat judges. The Executive branch does that. The Senate confirms judges under the Constitution's Advise and Consent power. Removing Federal judges Constitutionally can only be done through impeachment which has to go through the whole Congress. To change the rules to remove judges takes more than a change in Senate rules but would require a Constitutional Amendment.
I am not proposing any alternative version of U.S. history. I am protesting the Democratic Party's current power grab (invoking the "nuclear option"). Please cease obfuscating and address the real question.
By the way, the "deal" was McCain coming to Reid and said he would ask his party to consider allowing one of the judges in return for no nuke option. McCain couldn't even guarantee he had the votes for that. Hardly a deal and even if it was, it would be a really bad deal for Dems.
That's why I said 5 years... The "compromises" involved allowing 1 out of 97 potential nominees to go through in exchange for not changing the rules. Do you think that's reasonable? Shortsighted is choosing not to actually govern because you're interested in preserving rules that have been proven to be abused and no longer work. There's a reason the filibuster has been changed multiple times over the last century. The concept of cloture didn't even exist 100 years ago. This idea that these are great Senate traditions that never change simply isn't true.
In other words, you're just repeating what you heard from a random source and actually don't know what you're talking about. Again, you should learn some basic history of the filibuster. Still waiting to hear what the specific rule that Thomas Jefferson created is that Reid destroyed.
You said: I am equally appalled by Obama and Reid's changing rules written by Thomas Jefferson that have served us well for more than 200 years.I am equally appalled by Obama and Reid's changing rules written by Thomas Jefferson that have served us well for more than 200 years. We're just asking which rules you're talking about. Jefferson was never in the Senate, and if he wrote some of the rules, you would think that would be common knowledge. So, I find it curious that I have not come across these Jefferson rules yet. While you're at it, which rules did Obama change?
I'll make it easy for you. He read a quote by Lamar Alexander and he just regurgitated it to try to make himself sound smart. He can't explain it because he actually has no idea what he's talking about, and he's demonstrated in his long history here that he's not particularly interested in figuring anything out and prefers to just remain ignorant, ignore the issue, and then repeat this process in some other thread down the road.
I saw several reports stating it was McCain. Even if it wasn't, it changes little. There was no realistic deal for the Dems to take, leading many to believe the Repubs wanted this to happen. By the way, there's no Senator named Murkowsky.
Whoops sorry my bad. I read it too fast. No but that is why you keep on negotiating. I guess three times are multiple times but that hardly seems to be a lot of tinkering with the filibuster. My point isn't that tradition is kept for tradition sake but that both sides know the rules and the rules are designed to work for both sides. What a precedent like this establishes is that if the majority doesn't like what the minority is doing we can change the rules in the middle of the process. This would be like if in a football game one team gets to the 20 but then finds itself stymied because the other team is blitzing so they get the ref to change the rule so you can't blitz.
I am curious but do you have a link for that? I know the details of previous deals but would like to read what this was.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f43c4c-52dd-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/07/in-defense-of-the-filibuster/ As usual, major and rimrocker want others to do their research. Here are two current events stories, but researching my Thomas Jefferson biographies and papers will take longer, which, of course, is the purpose of their diversionary tactics.
My mistake: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowki. Again, you are forced to major on the minors because your don't want to challenge the real question here. In addition, you know that putting federal judges at risk puts federal bureaucrats in an even riskier position.
Rules always change when they don't do what they are supposed to do. The filibuster rules were based on informal "gentlemen's agreements" to not abuse them. They got abused, so they got changed. The NFL changes the rules regularly to make the game function more smoothly when things don't work the way they are intended.
Like I said, you have no idea what rules you are even defending. Cloture - the rule that was changed - didn't even exist 100 years ago. The idea that Reid changed anything relating to Thomas Jefferson is ludicrous - you'd know that if you actually knew anything about what you're talking about instead of just reposting political garbage without any actual knowledge of the subject.
