Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Are you for or against th...

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:39 PM

stevenleser (32,886 posts)

 

Are you for or against the senate rule change making it easier to confirm Presidential appointees?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-usa-senate-nominees-vote-idUSBRE9AK11420131121

(Reuters) - The Democratic-led Senate, in a historic rule change, stripped Republicans on Thursday of their ability to block President Barack Obama's judicial and executive branch nominees.

On a nearly party-line vote of 52-48, Democrats abruptly changed the Senate's balance of power by reducing from 60 to 51 the number of votes needed to end procedural roadblocks known as filibusters against all presidential nominees, except those for the U.S. Supreme Court.
29 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I'm FOR it! Finally! This is a great example of Democrats including Harry Reid showing spine!
20 (69%)
I'm AGAINST it because if Republicans regain the White House and Senate, they will abuse this horribly
4 (14%)
Not Sure
2 (7%)
Other
3 (10%)
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

41 replies, 2557 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Are you for or against the senate rule change making it easier to confirm Presidential appointees? (Original post)
 stevenleser Nov 2013 OP
LineReply All for it.
 HappyMe Nov 2013 #1
LineReply Mostly for it.
 ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #2
LineReply Didn't go far enough.
 Xipe Totec Nov 2013 #3
LineReply I'm for it in these circumstances.
 Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #4
LineReply I'd wish they'd gone whole hog on the filibuster but this is a good start. n/t
 winter is coming Nov 2013 #5
LineReply For it. Always have been.
 William769 Nov 2013 #6
LineReply Mostly but now the GOP will have this if God forbid the get power.
 hrmjustin Nov 2013 #7
LineReply For.
 moondust Nov 2013 #8
LineReply For it, but it is a great example of what sucks about the Democratic Party "Leadership".
 Egalitarian Thug Nov 2013 #9
LineLineReply You've answered your own objections within your own post
 Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #17
LineReply Ask me in 3 years. nt
 LittleBlue Nov 2013 #10
LineReply Cabinet Level Officers
 zipplewrath Nov 2013 #11
LineReply As someone who has followed politics for 30+ years I have this to say
 LynneSin Nov 2013 #12
LineReply Just make the talking filibuster permanent.
 NuclearDem Nov 2013 #13
LineReply Just remember this when the GOP holds the White House
 OmahaBlueDog Nov 2013 #14
LineLineReply SCOTUS is not included in this rule change.
 JoePhilly Nov 2013 #18
LineLineLineReply But the precedent has been set
 OmahaBlueDog Nov 2013 #19
LineLineLineLineReply The reps will hold the WH and Senate again,
 Skip Intro Nov 2013 #22
LineLineLineLineLineReply Its already open warfare.
 JoePhilly Nov 2013 #23
LineLineLineLineLineReply Well don't celebrate just yet
 CreekDog Nov 2013 #24
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply I love his use of the word "us"
 Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #27
LineLineLineLineLineReply LOL
 Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #25
LineLineLineLineLineReply I agree. That could happen by 2050. It won't...
 Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #26
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Well we can hope.
 Skip Intro Nov 2013 #28
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Using "shortsightedness" assumes Senate Dems haven't game planned
 Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #33
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Maybe. n/t
 Skip Intro Nov 2013 #41
LineReply Elections have consequences. nt
 geek tragedy Nov 2013 #15
LineReply How not have this rule used against us is NEVER to allow a Republican majority Senate to begin with!
 ancianita Nov 2013 #16
LineReply I am kinda for it, but not really sure.
 Xyzse Nov 2013 #20
LineReply Not sure.
 Rex Nov 2013 #21
LineReply All of those yes votes better keep mum in a few years...
 Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #29
LineLineNew Reply Hahaha. You again. You mad, bro?
 Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #34
LineLineLineNew Reply What's to be mad about?
 Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #36
LineLineLineLineNew Reply This creates true majority rule. What we think happens when we're in civics class
 Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #37
LineReply It was necessary.
 kentuck Nov 2013 #30
LineReply Back when Bill Frist threatened the Nuclear Option in 2003, I was against it.
 Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #31
LineNew Reply For it, (D)s don't really block appointments anyways
 Motown_Johnny Nov 2013 #32
LineNew Reply For it, now
 Spirochete Nov 2013 #35
LineNew Reply I'm for it because I know they wouldn't have waited this long to do it to us as soon as they got the
 Arcanetrance Nov 2013 #38
LineNew Reply I'm against the change generally.
 Hosnon Nov 2013 #39
LineNew Reply abusive use of filibuster can NOT be tolerated
 beachbum bob Nov 2013 #40

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:42 PM

HappyMe (20,277 posts)

1. All for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:42 PM

ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)

2. Mostly for it.

On one hand, like you stated in the against vote, this may help the Republicans in the future, but on the other hand, the Democrats probably wouldn't filibuster anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:48 PM

Star Member Xipe Totec (43,678 posts)

3. Didn't go far enough.

Why not end it for all legislation? The Republicans are going to do just that if they ever get the chance. So screw them, and screw them good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:53 PM

Bolo Boffin (23,796 posts)

4. I'm for it in these circumstances.

It was the abuse of the tool that led to it being taken away. If the GOP had used it as intended, to block the most extreme of nominees, that would be one thing. But for them to block again and again? And to do this on nominees they personally supported? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:02 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

5. I'd wish they'd gone whole hog on the filibuster but this is a good start. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:03 PM

Star Member William769 (52,908 posts)

6. For it. Always have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:14 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

7. Mostly but now the GOP will have this if God forbid the get power.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:15 PM

moondust (19,030 posts)

8. For.

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:46 PM - Edit history (2)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:17 PM

Egalitarian Thug (12,448 posts)

9. For it, but it is a great example of what sucks about the Democratic Party "Leadership".

 

They finally do part of something that should have been done over a decade ago, and after waiting far too long, they only do it half-assed because they had to be forced into action.

Harry is my Senator along with Heller and I'd happily trade the pair of them for a Sanders, but I'll never get a chance to vote for a Sanders because the Democratic Party here has everything locked down tight and this Sanders MkII will never be allowed on the ballot in the state of Nevada in no small part because of Harry Reid and the Mormon Mafia he serves.

Yes the republicans are worse, but being not as bad is not the same as being good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:55 PM

Pretzel_Warrior (8,361 posts)

17. You've answered your own objections within your own post

 

Political wishes are one thing. political realities are another. It was precisely after many rounds of negotiations and threats and unprecedented when reducing cloture requirements to 51 votes was politically tenable.

Your description of "half-assed" sort of ignores the fact that removing supreme court and legislative filibuster would accomplish nothing in this session.

Obama and team have every reason to believe there will be no new U.S. supreme Court vacancies, and nothing Senate passes is going to pass the house, so the likelihood is anything the house would vote for is something that could pass 60 seat majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:22 PM

LittleBlue (10,362 posts)

10. Ask me in 3 years. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:46 PM

zipplewrath (16,557 posts)

11. Cabinet Level Officers

I thought they should have included cabinet level in the exclusion as well (this includes UN amb.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:48 PM

LynneSin (95,337 posts)

12. As someone who has followed politics for 30+ years I have this to say

I understand why we had to do this but in the end I am worried of what will happen should the GOP get control.

What goes up must come down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:49 PM

NuclearDem (16,184 posts)

13. Just make the talking filibuster permanent.

 

Democrats won't be in power forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:50 PM

OmahaBlueDog (10,000 posts)

14. Just remember this when the GOP holds the White House

... when they nominate Jay Sekulow to the SCOTUS

Pray that we have a majority in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:56 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

18. SCOTUS is not included in this rule change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:58 PM

OmahaBlueDog (10,000 posts)

19. But the precedent has been set

..so if they have a majority, they'll use this as a basis for changing the rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:09 PM

Skip Intro (19,768 posts)

22. The reps will hold the WH and Senate again,

and this will come back to bite us, imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skip Intro (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:11 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

23. Its already open warfare.

Might as well get in the fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skip Intro (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:39 PM

CreekDog (46,192 posts)

24. Well don't celebrate just yet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to CreekDog (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:42 PM

Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)

27. I love his use of the word "us"

 

As if!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skip Intro (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:41 PM

Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)

25. LOL

 

You had a sad today, didn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skip Intro (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:41 PM

Pretzel_Warrior (8,361 posts)

26. I agree. That could happen by 2050. It won't...

 

But it is theoretically possible. Get ready for the long GOP darkness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:43 PM

Skip Intro (19,768 posts)

28. Well we can hope.

Shortsigtedness is not a virtue, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skip Intro (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:06 PM

Pretzel_Warrior (8,361 posts)

33. Using "shortsightedness" assumes Senate Dems haven't game planned

 

What would happen in future. I agree with others the GOP would yank the filibuster rule the next time they get majority REGARDLESS of what Dems do right now.

A bird in the hand better than two in the bush is not shortsighted--it's pragmatic and wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:35 PM

Skip Intro (19,768 posts)

41. Maybe. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:50 PM

geek tragedy (68,868 posts)

15. Elections have consequences. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:53 PM

Star Member ancianita (30,829 posts)

16. How not have this rule used against us is NEVER to allow a Republican majority Senate to begin with!

You don't have to worry about tables being turned if you fight like hell to keep this Senate a Democratic majority. Odds are in this party's favor for a long time to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:07 PM

Xyzse (8,217 posts)

20. I am kinda for it, but not really sure.

If it is merely in regards to filibusters, I suggest that filibusters must actually be physically done.
That a threat of a filibuster should not curtail the ability to govern.

I want them to have to stand and show who the f-ck they are when they block a nomination or some sort of amendment to a bill.

I am especially tired of the ones that are anonymous or not generally known.

That's about it. If someone is against something, they should mention it and their reasons. I dislike the idea of being able to hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:08 PM

Rex (65,616 posts)

21. Not sure.

 

On the one hand, I think it is GREAT for us! FINALLY the GOP cannot hold us hostage!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:44 PM

Decaffeinated (556 posts)

29. All of those yes votes better keep mum in a few years...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Decaffeinated (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:07 PM

Pretzel_Warrior (8,361 posts)

34. Hahaha. You again. You mad, bro?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:12 PM

Decaffeinated (556 posts)

36. What's to be mad about?

 



Harry Reid doesn't have that much longer and will reap the benefits before the pendulum swings... He won't deal with the consequences like some of his junior peers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Decaffeinated (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:13 PM

Pretzel_Warrior (8,361 posts)

37. This creates true majority rule. What we think happens when we're in civics class

 

Let's see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:46 PM

Star Member kentuck (108,792 posts)

30. It was necessary.

They had no choice.

If the Repubs were to have taken the Senate, Democrats could have obstructed the same as Repubs and screwed our government up even more, or they could go along with Republican nominations. Democrats have more respect for the government than to try and tear it down thru obstruction.

If government is to work, one Party cannot be permitted to block every operation of government, including shutting down government entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:51 PM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

31. Back when Bill Frist threatened the Nuclear Option in 2003, I was against it.

because it took the power from the minority, and we were the minority.

This doesn't get rid of all Filibusters, bills and SCOTUS appointments can be opposed in this way. But it permanently changes Power in the Senate. No one should complain when the tables are turned, but they will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:03 PM

Motown_Johnny (22,308 posts)

32. For it, (D)s don't really block appointments anyways

 

It won't make that big a difference if/when an (R) is President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:11 PM

Spirochete (5,264 posts)

35. For it, now

Used to be against it, until this group of children took over. Now it's an absolute necessity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:16 PM

Arcanetrance (2,670 posts)

38. I'm for it because I know they wouldn't have waited this long to do it to us as soon as they got the

chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:26 PM

Hosnon (7,800 posts)

39. I'm against the change generally.

When used properly (pre-Obama), it served a legitimate function. But as now used, it is a political tool used by the minority to nullify elections.

Had the GOP not abused the filibuster, this wouldn't have happened. Good faith requires... good faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:34 PM

beachbum bob (10,437 posts)

40. abusive use of filibuster can NOT be tolerated

 

any longer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

General Discussion (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2023 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.