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

[stevenleser]

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.

28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I'm FOR it! Finally! This is a great example of Democrats including Harry Reid showing spine!
	19 (68%)
	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 (11%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[HappyMe]

1. All for it.

[ZombieHorde]

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.

[Xipe Totec]

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.

[Bolo Boffin]

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.

[winter is coming]

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

[William769]

6. For it. Always have been.

[hrmjustin]

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

[moondust]

8. For.

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

[Egalitarian Thug]

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.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

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.

[LittleBlue]

10. Ask me in 3 years. nt

[zipplewrath]

11. Cabinet Level Officers

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

[LynneSin]

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.

[NuclearDem]

13. Just make the talking filibuster permanent.

Democrats won't be in power forever.

[OmahaBlueDog]

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.

[JoePhilly]

18. SCOTUS is not included in this rule change.

[OmahaBlueDog]

19. But the precedent has been set

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

[Skip Intro]

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

and this will come back to bite us, imho.

[JoePhilly]

23. Its already open warfare.

Might as well get in the fight.

[CreekDog]

24. Well don't celebrate just yet

[Cali_Democrat]

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

As if!!

[Cali_Democrat]

25. LOL

You had a sad today, didn't you?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

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

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

[Skip Intro]

28. Well we can hope.

Shortsigtedness is not a virtue, though.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

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.

[Skip Intro]

41. Maybe. n/t

[geek tragedy]

15. Elections have consequences. nt

[ancianita]

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.

[Xyzse]

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.

[Rex]

21. Not sure.

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

[Decaffeinated]

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

[Pretzel_Warrior]

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

[Decaffeinated]

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.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

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

Let's see what happens.

[kentuck]

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.

[Agnosticsherbet]

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.

[Motown_Johnny]

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.

[Spirochete]

35. For it, now

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

[Arcanetrance]

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.

[Hosnon]

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.

[beachbum bob]

40. abusive use of filibuster can NOT be tolerated

any longer