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

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#31

Post by talmand »

DannyBee wrote: post #16
sigzero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would choose that over the alternative.

Except it's quickly reaching the point where they don't even have a quorum of judges. A number of circuits are having to pull judges from other circuits in order to decide cases ...

Is this problem across the board or just for posts that are life-long appointments?

I can understand the dilemma over life-long appointments but for judges easily replaced in the future then I fail to see what the hold-up is about.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#32

Post by nknighthb »

talmand wrote: post #28
nknighthb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the minority is screwing the country, yes, screw the minority.

This is the system of governance we have. It functioned virtually without filibustering of nominees for two centuries. If you truly believe the problem here is the majority, you are far, far beyond reason.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#33

Post by talmand »

Nelkins wrote: post #26
the_watcher wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it is limited to Senate rules changes then it's irrelevant. The Senate rules are, after all, the rules. For example:

Majority wishes to pass a bill that the minority doesn't agree with. Majority wants to change the rules on that vote to get it passed despite minority.

Minority says they can't because the Senate rules forbid it.

Majority changes rules from forbidding it to allowing it.

Granted, that's a simplistic way of looking at it. It would seem to me that rule changes should have higher requirements than simple majority because then the majority can change the rules whenever they wish.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#34

Post by nknighthb »

talmand wrote: post #31
DannyBee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's quickly reaching the point where they don't even have a quorum of judges. A number of circuits are having to pull judges from other circuits in order to decide cases ...

Is this problem across the board or just for posts that are life-long appointments? I can understand the dilemma over life-long appointments but for judges easily replaced in the future then I fail to see what the hold-up is about.

Life tenure is all we're talking about here. It's all that exists in federal courts of general jurisdiction. Every federal district, circuit, and supreme court judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is life tenure.

Magistrates, who operate only on the district court level (not in the appellate courts or supreme court), are not Article III judges. They're appointed by the actual Article III judges without input from the President or Senate, and they can handle cases only by the consent of both parties, and their rulings are appealable to an actual Article III district court judge.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#35

Post by excitom »

talmand wrote: post #28
nknighthb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What part of "you need to win elections in order to get to make the rules" is un-democratic?

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#36

Post by adestefan »

talmand wrote: post #33
Nelkins wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it is limited to Senate rules changes then it's irrelevant. The Senate rules are, after all, the rules. For example: Majority wishes to pass a bill that the minority doesn't agree with. Majority wants to change the rules on that vote to get it passed despite minority. Minority says they can't because the Senate rules forbid it. Majority changes rules from forbidding it to allowing it. Granted, that's a simplistic…

One of the very few enumerated power in the Constitution is that the Senate and House get to make their rules however they see fit. What usually happens is that at the beginning of the new Congress the first order of business for each body is to set the current rules. Part of those rules are how to change the rules during the current.

It's common for these to be passed unanimously.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#37

Post by talmand »

nknighthb wrote: post #32
talmand wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When the minority is screwing the country, yes, screw the minority. This is the system of governance we have. It functioned virtually without filibustering of nominees for two centuries. If you truly believe the problem here is the majority, you are far, far beyond reason.

Then we move to the next worse example; the majority defines what the minority is or is not doing.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#38

Post by protomyth »

Given Sen Reid's defense of the filibuster and opposition to a rules change in 2005, we basically see that this isn't for the good of the country, it is basic, bad politics.

The Senate is not supposed to be efficient and the minority party needs to have a say. It is that simple. People pointing out the good old days, don't actually remember them.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#39

Post by LanceH »

talmand wrote: post #20
shooper wrote: post #12

What's stopping the Senate from reverting back to the old rules just before the next Senate/Presidential elections?

Nothing. These are rules of the Senate so they can be changed at will whenever they choose. Well, within the rules of the Senate that covers changing the rules of the Senate. But since it was done, it'll be easier to repeat it in the future. Which was why most wanted to avoid doing it over the years.

And raising the standard of changing the rules just before you leave power.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#40

Post by nknighthb »

talmand wrote: post #37
nknighthb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the minority is screwing the country, yes, screw the minority. This is the system of governance we have. It functioned virtually without filibustering of nominees for two centuries. If you truly believe the problem here is the majority, you are far, far beyond reason.

Then we move to the next worse example; the majority defines what the minority is or is not doing.

At this point you're just trolling.
Post reply on HN