Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#21

Post by bradleyjg »

tdees40 wrote: post #4

For anyone uninformed on this matter, a few facts: 1) The Senate is a majority body, but it requires a 60 vote (i.e. 60%) threshold to cut off debate and force a vote on a bill; otherwise, debate continues indefinitely. 2) In practice, this obviously can lead to the Senate becoming a supermajority body if filibusters are routinely exercised. In the last 5-10 years, this has become the case. For instance, this is an e…

I should also be noted, for non-Americans or extremly ill informed Americans, that the Senate is already a body that is non-democratic. Every state votes for two Senators regardless of population. So even under a majority rule, Senators representing 16.9% of the population can block an appointment. Under the de facto 60 vote rule, Senators representing only 11% of the population could do so. To put that 11% in perspective, 13% of the US population is foreign born, 15.8% are baptist, 13.2% are African-American, and around 10.1% live in either the NYC or LA metropolitan statistical areas.

There is perhaps an argument to be made about the majority not riding roughshod over the minority, but in this case the threshold for a blocking minority was just too small.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#22

Post by the_watcher »

Nelkins wrote: post #17

If some senators were against this, why didn't they just use the filibuster to prevent the rules from changing?

I may be wrong, but I believe Senate rules are set by majority vote, and there is a mechanism available to the Majority leader to simply declare only 50 votes are needed to pass. The main reason it isn't used all the time is that the majority party generally worries about repercussions when they are a minority party.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#23

Post by nknighthb »

talmand wrote: post #8
lmkg wrote: post #3

For context: The federal court has been perennially over-booked and under-staffed for a number of years because the confirmations of judges to open vacancies were being used as political bargaining chips. Both parties would try to influence the ideological make-up of the judiciary. Back in the good ol' days when the filibuster was used with some modicum of restraint, this meant that a minority party could prevent ove…

Not that I'm disagreeing, but what if the minority believes that all of the nominees are over-ideological candidates?

Then reality sets in and the majority (finally) exercises its constitutional powers to govern.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#24

Post by tdees40 »

benjohnson wrote: post #5

This is a poor decision - the party in power will be able to appoint extremists. This may be temporary pleasing, but at some point the other party will be in power, with the net result that the judiciary will be filled judges of less moderation and more politics.

If a majority of Americans prefer extremists, then extremists we shall have. Such is the way of democracy.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#26

Post by Nelkins »

the_watcher wrote: post #22
Nelkins wrote: post #17

If some senators were against this, why didn't they just use the filibuster to prevent the rules from changing?

I may be wrong, but I believe Senate rules are set by majority vote, and there is a mechanism available to the Majority leader to simply declare only 50 votes are needed to pass. The main reason it isn't used all the time is that the majority party generally worries about repercussions when they are a minority party.

I assume that the ability of the Majority leader to declare that only 50 votes are required is limited to Senate rule changes?

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#27

Post by talmand »

Nelkins wrote: post #17

If some senators were against this, why didn't they just use the filibuster to prevent the rules from changing?

Because they only needed a majority to pass the rule change. There wasn't enough opposition to cause a filibuster, which was the point. There was enough opposition to do a filibuster when 60 votes were needed, now that only a majority is needed a filibuster is pointless. Thus, the minority might as well go home if they face a united front from the majority on the specific points this rule change covers.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#28

Post by talmand »

nknighthb wrote: post #23
talmand wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I'm disagreeing, but what if the minority believes that all of the nominees are over-ideological candidates?

Then reality sets in and the majority (finally) exercises its constitutional powers to govern.

Ah, I get it, we fall back to the worst example of democracy; screw the minority.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#29

Post by thejteam »

smackfu wrote: post #10
benjohnson wrote: post #5

This is a poor decision - the party in power will be able to appoint extremists. This may be temporary pleasing, but at some point the other party will be in power, with the net result that the judiciary will be filled judges of less moderation and more politics.

The current situation is that the party in power doesn't get to appoint anyone. What good is power then?

At some point in the future, whether it is 4 years, 8 years, or more, the other guy will eventually be in power again. Then you want checks on the guy in power. Next time somebody on the far-right is in power, expect to see some VERY far-right judges appointed.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#30

Post by greenburger »

the_watcher wrote: post #14
r00fus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate is giving up NO power. The Senate is deciding to act democratically now, on a simply majority vote, instead of being hobbled by a super-minority, and only for presidential nominations. Truly inappropriate nominations (ie, Harriet Myers) can still be blocked by majority vote. The entire filibuster was never laid out in the constitution, it's a convention adopted by the Senate itself and was used ruthlessly…

It's also been used (by both sides) to block all kinds of other things, from tax cuts to tax hikes, debt ceiling increases, defense authorizations, New Deal legislation, and judicial appointees. As a Senator, President Obama even voted to filibuster John Roberts appointment, who was fairly universally seen as a highly competent, qualified nominee as Chief Justice. In short, the filibuster has been used for the purpos…

The cloture rules have changed many times over the years. A quick summary can be found on the US Senate webpage. However, Originally the filibuster was not unique to the Senate, House members could also filibuster, and there was no means of voting to end debate. Obviously this had to change if the House was to accomplish anything as it grew. One could well argue that it is time for the rules in the Senate to change again if it is to get anything done.

[1]: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/...

Post reply on HN