Posted on 01/04/2017 3:32:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The way the Dems abused power is what you call “jumping the shark.”
You know democrats will do it whenever they finally retake the Senate. Republicans should do it now.
“We much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes and majority rule than the risk of continued total obstruction,” added Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) “That’s the bottom line, no matter who’s in power.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/nuclear-option-2014_n_4324657.html
Selective memory?
We’re already too far down the road to stop, maybe we could get off at the next exit after the vacancies are filled. The rules could be amended then.
Thanks for your reply. You are right. As mentioned in my earlier post, the filibuster began as a means to stop the passage of bills. Its original purpose was not to forcefully require a super majority to pass anything -- certainly not presidential appointments. Somewhere along the way over the last 50-60 years, the filibuster became warped beyond all reason. The way it's practiced today is just absurd and, yes, unconstitutional.
The unfortunate thing, however, is that it is a senate rule. So in that narrow sense the filibuster is not unconstitutional. But, as a rule and not something specifically enshrined in the Constitution, the filibuster can be changed or eliminated easily unless the current rule is written to require a super majority vote to change it. The way the filibuster is practiced today is truly terrible, and I would say that even if the Democrats were in the majority.
Or sooner...
In the United States, except for slaves, servants and the destitute fed by townships, everyone has the vote and this is an indirect contributor to law-making. Anyone wishing to attack the law is thus reduced to adopting one of two obvious courses: they must either change the nation's opinion or trample its wishes under foot.
--Tocqueville
He wrote this BEFORE the 18 year old heads of mush got the 'right' to vote.
If I were to look at the original constitution, I’d ask myself the question, “Did the Founders intend a simple majority vote to confirm a Scotus or cabinet appointment?”
The answer to that would be “yes”. That is the original understanding. The Founders expected legislative proposals to move forward to a vote. And that vote was a simple majority in both houses.
What is the advantage of that?
First, it enables the country to move quickly when necessary to implement important legislation.
Next, and maybe more significant, it enables the country to remove harmful legislation that has been shown to be harmful.
Finally, disagreements on directions for the country can easily be changed by elections which take on a new significance. A change in majority car quickly adjust the direction of the nation, and particularly when the president is amenable to that adjustment.
I think THAT is best for the country.
ObamaCare is awful. It needs to be killed. It is bankrupting companies, individuals, and the nation. No reasonably mathematical person can argue otherwise.
But, according to many, we should be stuck with it because Senators voted themselves a rule that prevents the nation from changing.
Filibusters originally were only intended to prevent the passage of bills, but in the phony filibuster era, senators could declare one for almost any reason.
November, 2013
“The age-old rules of the Senate are being used to paralyze us,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “The public is asking – is begging – us to act.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/21/nation/la-na-senate-filibuster-20131122
“We'd much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes and majority rule than the risk of continued total obstruction,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “That's the bottom line no matter who's in power.”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?316411-1/senate-democrats-filibuster-vote
Senate Democrats on Filibuster Vote Senate Democratic leaders spoke to reporters about their vote in favor of eliminating filibusters on most presidential nominations.
(Schumer approx. 34:00 mark )
Yeh Schmucky Payback’s a beotch!
hmm... They could have reversed it that easily?
“Advise and consent” was never intended to mean “ideological litmus test” or “policy quid pro quo.”
I agree, Zins... AFTER we beat them over the head with it and get OUR people where we need them to be.
'S only "fair" after all...and the Dems are ALL about "fair"...
:^)
Now THAT!...would be a riot.
(the sounds of liberal heads exploding, echoing in the distance)
Oh gee Chuckie, spawn of the devil. What goes round, comes round, like a ring inside a toilet and the permanent orbit of Ur-Anus.
What they really mean is “I wish we got rid of this before we lost the Senate.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.