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

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#41

Post by rjett »

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…

I'll take a model that iterates often, with higher likelihood of variance in ideology, over one that optimizes for moderation at the expense of gridlock.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#42

Post by excitom »

the_watcher wrote: post #18
shooper wrote: post #12

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

They could do that, but there is also no reason that Republicans, should they take power, would just revert back again, and potentially go farther.

Exactly. There was always a "gentlemans' agreement" not to abuse the game, but that decorum has been abandoned.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#43

Post by ap22213 »

protomyth wrote: post #38

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.

Given the fact that Reid had voiced such opposition, and since they waited so long to do it emphasizes the significance of the act. They really didn't want to do it, but they really had no other choice.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

shooper wrote: post #12

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

The fact that the Senate rules are adopted for each new session, at the opening of the session, by a simple majority vote stops that from being meaningful as a tactic (nothing stops them from doing it, but it doesn't do any good.)

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#45

Post by adestefan »

bradleyjg wrote: post #21
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 perspe…

The Senate was never meant to be a democratically elected body. Until the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913 Senators where picked by the States.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#46

Post by talmand »

excitom wrote: post #35
talmand wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I didn't say it was un-democratic. I was trying to point out that democracy can be a bad thing when the majority decides to vote themselves power to the detriment of the minority.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#47

Post by protomyth »

ap22213 wrote: post #43
protomyth wrote: post #38

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.

Given the fact that Reid had voiced such opposition, and since they waited so long to do it emphasizes the significance of the act. They really didn't want to do it, but they really had no other choice.

"They really didn't want to do it, but they really had no other choice."[1]

Yes, he had a choice. Leave it the same as the other party did in 2005 and stop trying to be a modern day Senate version of Thomas Brackett Reed. The amount of debates that Reid has closed down has been amazing.

The other party will get into power at some point and then Reid will regret this foolishness and so will we.

1) might as well say "The end will justify the means"

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#48

Post by bradleyjg »

adestefan wrote: post #45
bradleyjg wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perspe…

The Senate was never meant to be a democratically elected body. Until the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913 Senators where picked by the States.

And therefore what? The people who drafted the Constitution intended the Senate to be an aristocratic body limited to white, male, landholders. Do you think that's a good idea? How far should we go to further the intentions of the drafters? Should we revive slavery?

Here's what one guy who had to miss the Constitutional convention because he was serving his nation abroad had to say:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." (Thomas Jefferson)

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#49

Post by the_watcher »

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…

The power of precedent and fear of being in the minority is what generally fights against this. Rule changes that drastically favor the majority will hurt them when they end up in the minority.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#50

Post by talmand »

nknighthb wrote: post #40
talmand wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmmm, I thought I was giving thoughtful responses to your posts. After all, you read my first response about screwing the minority and your answer seemed to suggest your are fully willing to do so. If you're willing to accept one terrible aspect of democracy you should be willing to embrace it all. Not mildly attacking someone for pointing out your potential defects. I'm only trying to help.

Now I think I'm trolling, but it's a natural response due to your posts.

Post reply on HN