Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
nytimes.com
Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
1–10 of 58 posts
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#2The argument for not appointing any more appeals judges was that the caseload was light enough, that no more were needed.
In my opinion, it was right for the Senate to give up a little power here. They should be exercising more oversight powers in other areas.
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#3For 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 over-ideological candidates from getting elected. But, over time, the process evolved to the point where the party out-of-power would try to block all nominations so that when they were back in-power in several years, they had more vacancies to fill with their own ideologically-pure candidates.
Purely in terms of government fulfilling its obligated duties to function, this is an improvement because the judiciary will now become staffed. However, the lack of a filibuster threat will probably push us away from politically neutral appointments, towards an alternating (and hopefully balanced over time?) mix of biases in opposite directions.
tl;dr this is why we can't have nice things.
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#4For 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 example of a bill that "failed" despite receiving a 54-46 vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04...
3) This rule change would only apply to presidential appointments. The 60-vote threshold would remain in place for other bills.
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#5This 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.
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#6The argument for not appointing any more appeals judges was that the caseload was light enough, that no more were needed. In my opinion, it was right for the Senate to give up a little power here. They should be exercising more oversight powers in other areas.
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 by southern racist senators (both Dem and GOP) to block progressive legislation despite being popular and wanted by the majority.
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#7For 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 suspect moderates (and more senior folk) in both parties will tend to threaten a nay-vote on more extreme nominees, both in the interest of having a sane court system (in the case of moderates), and to avoid provoking retaliation from the other side (in the case of people who have been around a long time).
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#8For 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?
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#9For 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…
>> 3) This rule change would only apply to presidential appointments. The 60-vote threshold would remain in place for other bills.
However, this sets a very convenient precedent to expand the new rules for legislation should a caucus ever want it badly enough.
Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters
#10This 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?