COL Gene COL Gene

Nuclear Option in the Senate

▼

Nuclear Option in the Senate

from JoeUser Forums



The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations. If that is true, many more judicial nominations under Clinton never got an up or down vote because they were bottled up in committee. If the objective is an UP or DOWN vote, the tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton administration to prevent a vote through committee is just as much of a problem is holding up a vote in the Senate through filibuster. The end result is the same in both scenarios - no UP or DOWN vote.

Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.
politics
22,602 views 91 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Back to the topic... how is the Up/Down vote rule actually a bad thing? I'm talking about the rule itself, ignoring who is proposing it and for what reasons. Look at the rule as a piece of governing law... how is this a bad thing?
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

The results I posted are as follows:

USA 56 % disapprove of Bush plan
AP-Iposs 56 Disapprove
ABC 55 % disapprove
Cnn 53% disapprove.

How do these results not prove my point?
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zoomba

Here is why- The conservatives have got control of the GOP but not all the GOP are conservatives. If the Senate rules change, the net result is that a minority, the conservative republicans, can do what ever they want and act aginst the majority which ARE NOT conservtives. The problem is that the interests of the two parties have become mismatched. Many of the issues that drive conservatives are not really in agreement with moderates, independents or liberals want but because the choice is either a voting Republican or Democrat many Republicans who don't agree with the conservative policies have voted Republican as opposed to voting for a Democrat. The lack of balance between the House, Senate and White House is allowing a minority interest, the conservatives, to act as if they had a majority which they do not have in this country. The result are laws and policies that ignore the majority and play to the desires of the minority.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
No no no no NO... You're taking this as a political issue and using your own personal bias to evaluate the issue. I'm asking you to step back and evaluate the rule based on the merits of the rule itself and nothing else.

If a majority of senators vote to confirm a judge, how is that being controlled by a minority in the party? All they're asking for is a fair vote, which should be a rule anyway. Try thinking a bit more long-term here, and leave partisan concerns aside.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
The results I posted are as follows:

USA 56 % disapprove of Bush plan
AP-Iposs 56 Disapprove
ABC 55 % disapprove
Cnn 53% disapprove.

How do these results not prove my point?


Because a poll is not a valid indicator of America. A poll of a very small amount of Americans does not prove your point or make you right. I would be %99 of those people polled don't even know how social security works, much less know how to fix it.

The lack of balance between the House, Senate and White House is allowing a minority interest, the conservatives, to act as if they had a majority which they do not have in this country. The result are laws and policies that ignore the majority and play to the desires of the minority.


These people were all voted in by Americans. You are not going to change that.
Reply #56 from PolMach Forums Top
The polls I provided above were to show that something needs to be done.

Not to support Bush's plan, but to show that the people wants some type of plan. Some thing only Bush has provided. Congressmen Ford (D) from Tennessee has been trying to get another plan through, but the Democratic leadership have refused to entertain any plans. Even from their own party members.

I am not blind to the fact that there are three times as many mostly slanted questioned and a few none slanted polls showing people don't want his plan. Most of the Slanted questions have an overwhelming disapproval, but notice those polls have a sentence criticizing the plan before the actual question. With the non-slanted polls, disapprovals still out number the approved, but the margins are much closer.

As for the nuclear option, I think if someone wants to filibuster something they should do it the way the original rule required: STAND UP IN FRONT OF CONGRESS TALKING. If the minority does not have the conviction to keep debate going on the floor itself, then they need to vote like the Constitution says.

Aaah, the good old days, when Senator would stand up reading from the Bible for two weeks.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue you all avoid is the Bush individual account plan not only does not solve the problem of Social Scecuity being unable to pay 100% of the benefits after 2042 but actually makes Social Security more insolvent. Why would anyone propose something that makes the problem they identify worse? Please answer this question!
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue you all avoid is the Bush individual account plan not only does not solve the problem of Social Scecuity being unable to pay 100% of the benefits after 2042 but actually makes Social Security more insolvent. Why would anyone propose something that makes the problem they identify worse? Please answer this question!


Nobody has avoided this. Many people have explained to you about individual accounts. This is what you revert to when people start dismantling your theories.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
There has been NO explination as to how the creation of individual accounts solve the issue of Social Security being able to pay 100% of the retirement benefits after 2042. The issues I have included have been from many sources including the Social Security Administration which said the Bush plan WILL NOT solve the problem. Therefore there are only two lodgical resons Bush would propose something that is not a solution. He is trying to help another group of his supporters or he is stupid.Which one do you think is correct?
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue you all avoid is the Bush individual account plan not only does not solve the problem of Social Scecuity being unable to pay 100% of the benefits after 2042 but actually makes Social Security more insolvent. Why would anyone propose something that makes the problem they identify worse? Please answer this question!


That's really funny ColGene... I thought the issue of this thread was

The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations.


and that:

If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.


;~D
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
You've still failed to show why this rule is actually bad... The rule, not the intentions or the people... the rule as an ammendment to how the government works.

I congratulate you for completely avoiding the issue you brought up in the first place.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

The results I posted are as follows:

USA 56 % disapprove of Bush plan
AP-Iposs 56 Disapprove
ABC 55 % disapprove
Cnn 53% disapprove.

How do these results not prove my point?


Then how do Lee1776's not disprove your point?
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason this that this is a error is that it will be used against the Republicans some day. What comes around goes around.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason this that this is a error is that it will be used against the Republicans some day. What comes around goes around


By the time democrats regain power, robots will be running things.
Reply #66 from PolMach Forums Top
robots will be running things


--isn't that what liberals think neocons [ or republicans] are?
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
The filibuster is a unique device that creates room for minority views to be respected within the Senate. In consociational democracies, it is called "mutual veto." By forcing a supermajority to end a filibuster, power (though limited) is given to the minority. The filibuster ensures that minority views are presented and heard. To remove it, even if only limited to judicial nominess, would make the Senate less deliberative.

Remember, even though these Senators were elected by majority vote--there are still many people living in their district who do not necessarily agree with them, but who they are charged with representing nonetheless.

The filibuster has been adopted as one of the "checks and balances" of the federal system--it helps to keep politics moderate and does not allow any extreme to dominate unbridled.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
shadesofgrey

You said what I was getting at very well. The conservatives do not care about "Checks and Balances". it is all about them having it their way. History will not look back with favor on this change if it happens!
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
The filibuster is a unique device that creates room for minority views to be respected within the Senate. In consociational democracies, it is called "mutual veto." By forcing a supermajority to end a filibuster, power (though limited) is given to the minority. The filibuster ensures that minority views are presented and heard. To remove it, even if only limited to judicial nominess, would make the Senate less deliberative.

Remember, even though these Senators were elected by majority vote--there are still many people living in their district who do not necessarily agree with them, but who they are charged with representing nonetheless.

The filibuster has been adopted as one of the "checks and balances" of the federal system--it helps to keep politics moderate and does not allow any extreme to dominate unbridled.


It just seems funny to me that the fillibuster was "never" used on judical nominees until GW took office. Now that they want to stop that BS everyones hollering about it. I've even heard it called unconstitutional.
Reply #70 from PolMach Forums Top
The filibuster has been adopted as one of the "checks and balances" of the federal system--it helps to keep politics moderate and does not allow any extreme to dominate unbridled.



But by not letting votes to reach the floor, where it should be debated, your letting those with minority extremes to dominate what is debated. While you’re arguing prevention of one extreme that is in the majority, your letting another extreme that is in the minority to dominate unbridled. Something that is not in the Constitution as a check and balance. If you can find it, please show me.

IMO what is left of the Democrat party is now extreme. All the moderates have fled that party already.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
The GOP prevented Clinton nominations by stopping them in committee. The end result was the same--NO UP or Down Vote
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
prevented Clinton nominations by stopping them in committee. The end result was the same--NO UP or Down Vote


BIG DIFFERENCE! Stopping them in committee is a time honored method and entirely different from fillibustering. But the dems have changed it to suit themselves
Reply #73 from PolMach Forums Top
The GOP prevented Clinton nominations by stopping them in committee. The end result was the same--NO UP or Down Vote


--Maybe they've seen the error of their ways and have decided to get it that way so when the democrats next have to get people agreed,it will be 'fair'.....
Reply #74 from PolMach Forums Top
BTW....

GOP?
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

WRONG. IT is Bush who is saying "Every presidential nomination dererves an UP or Down Vote. It does not matter if that UP or Dowen vote is prevented in committee or in the entire Senate.