This is where the misunderstanding probably arises... looks like McCain was the one trying to do the deal and Murkowski was repeating what the offer was... I couldn't find any stories that said Murkowski negotiated with Reid.
I don't think this has happened yet, but give millions of working class whhitee a taste of Obamacare reality which disproves once again the lies they have been fed and it might just happen.
Thanks for those links and I've read through them and didn't see the "1 for 97" number that has been cited by others in this thread. The only number I saw for a deal with the one that you quote Murkowski as offering 1 appointment for 2. Let me be clear that I don't think the Republicans are blameless. Clearly they have abused the filibuster but I don't think that still makes it a good idea to do away with a rule that has both parties have used and think this whole thing is very shortsighted. The links you provide offer some support to that position. From the Time article http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/2...ks-like-the-hell-raising-house/#ixzz2lOwTCZoE [rquoter] The move also signals a major shift in the Senate, as it becomes nastier and more effective, like the majority-driven House. ... The new move is historic because it goes well beyond lowering the threshold from 60 Senators to a simple majority on all presidential appointments and nominations, except those to the Supreme Court. Reid acted outside the formal rulemaking process, leading his colleagues to overrule the Senate president in the middle of a contentious debate. Reid thus created a new precedent in which a simple majority can dispense with Senate rules on any vote, including legislation covering any aspect of life in America. ... Three Democrats — Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — voted with every Republican against Reid’s procedure, citing the dangerous precedent it set. Pryor bemoaned the simple-majority move, known as the “nuclear option.” The Senate, he said on the chamber floor, is “the only place where the minority is guaranteed a voice.” “With all due respect to our colleagues in the House, you don’t see law being made there,” he added. “They come out of their rules committee, and it’s all pretty much set up and they at least tend to vote party-line, party-line, party-line, done.” Levin expressed concern that the Democrats’ action will snowball into areas outside nominations. “This precedent is going to be used, I fear, to change the rules on consideration of legislation,” said Levin. “And down the road — we don’t know how far down the road; we never know that in a democracy — but, down the road, the hard-won protections and benefits for our people’s health and welfare will be lost.” [/rquoter] While in the short term this will certainly move nominees but I doubt it will have much change regarding legislation or getting the rest of Obama's agenda implemented as long as the House remains in Republican control. In the long term that means that a majority party that controls all three branches like the Republicans did 10 years ago and the Democrats did from 2008 to 2010 will run absolutely roughshod over the minority. This just makes election politics and ideology even more important and reduces the importance of deliberation and moderation in the Senate.
As I said above the Republicans are not blameless and have abused the rules. It was the Democrats who decided on after previously arguing vociferously for the right of the minority and the sacrosanctness of the Senate as a deliberative body. Except if you read the quote I bold from the Time article you will see this wasn't done at the end of the season or even the end of a game but essentially during a game. One of the issues that came up during the 2005 debate was whether Senate rules could be changed in mid session as the rules are established at the beginning of each new Congress. This wasn't the case here and does establish the dangerous precedent that any rule can be changed by the majority anytime.
If dems truly hold national elections, then this change is theirs for a while. Just by doing it is a slippery slope for any maj party to do away with others, but for this issue, I support it. Not even putting the nominee for a vote is such a bs maneuver. They should have gone to force votes rather than can the thing completely
Sure - both sides are hypocrites. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The rules were established at the beginning of this session by an agreement between Reid and McConnell on how the filibuster would and wouldn't be used, and Reid reserved the right to officially change the rules if the GOP didn't keep their word. That's what happened, so the rules changed. The precedent that the rule could be changed mid-session was already established in 2005 when the GOP threatened to do it. If it wasn't considered possible, the threat would have been meaningless.
The precedent wasn't established in 2005 because the GOP controlled Senate didn't actually follow through.
And they didn't follow through because the Democrats held up their end of the bargain. The GOP here did not. Frankly you're just arguing a boring semantic here about when the precedent is established - in the big picture it's meaningless. I don't get why anybody would see precedent as an end to itself - but here we're dealing with a completely faithless actor that is violating precedent as a matter of course and that doesn't stick to its bargains. If your objective is some workable system of collegiality in the Senate - If you're going to say that precedent should be respected even more so than parties acting in good faith and keeping their word, then you're basically obliterating your own argument as this is inherently unworkable.
As someone who is lawyer you should understand the importance of precedent. A threat and an act are not the same thing and in one case a threat was made but no act was carried out. Now if you are going to say that the Republicans have not acted in good faith I can agree with you yet it is important to note that it is under a Democrat controlled Senate that the threat was actually carried out. Again though there were Senators working on solutions and as has been noted agreements have been reached in the past. The Senate both by definition and tradition is meant to be a deliberative body. My main argument isn't about keeping collegiality but that this was a rule that worked to the benefit of both parties and it is short sighted to believe that the majority party will always remain majority.
I do understand it, which is why I understand that its value is based on all parties consenting to be bound by it. When one party doesn't agree to be bound by it, or even worse, agrees to be bound by it, then acts otherwise - it has no value at best, and it is more likely a hindrance rather than a help. Your main argument is based on both parties recognizing this, whereas the reality is that one party discarded this view a long time ago and started exploiting people who voice your main argument.
there's some fascinating reading in this thread from the deep archives. here's a link to a Time story summarizing how we got here: http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/
Turabout is fair play? I don't remember a case of a fully qualified USSC candidate who didn't get a hearing... do you?
I think you're just angry because believe it or not, what Bobby says about Obama is true in this case: he sucked at the political part of the job (hence all those revocable Executive Orders he signed), and in a pique of frustration he allowed or encouraged Reid to do something very very stupid that people at the time (including Republicans) warned would backfire. Now that time has come.
Not angry... just waiting for you to offer up that "turnabout is fair play" example of a fully qualified USSC that was denied even a hearing.
So you are upset that the Senate didn't waste time with a hearing before rejecting Garland rather than rejecting him in the manner in which they did? That seems to be an odd complaint.
this is probably not what you're looking for but the word "lapsed" appears over 20 times I believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
