Supermajorities

[stip]

higher stakes/higher threshold

[Norah]

Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.

[stip]

it'd be nice if this turned into a debate about finally establishing term limits for justices, but it won't

[Chris_H_2]

Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.

The DC Circuit is pretty powerful.

[Norah]

Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.

The DC Circuit is pretty powerful.

As powerful as the Supreme Court?

[Chris_H_2]

Yeah, more power/more scrutiny.

The DC Circuit is pretty powerful.

As powerful as the Supreme Court?

It's where most justices on the S. Ct. come from. It's why there's so much hub bub surrounding the DC Circuit that led to the nuclear option.

[stip]

Listen, you're preaching to the converted on giving deference to a president's nomination so long as the person is (a) qualified, and (b) not a serial killer. The problem with both parties is that members have taken it upon themselves to define a person's qualifications based on their ideologies, and have tried to administer a litmus test to demonstrate that the nominee is "out of touch" or "too far to the [left or right]." I think it's despicable.

At the same time, I also see what's going on with the recent fights and, in particular, the opportunity that the Democrats see to facilitate the White House's agenda of legislating by regulation. Hence, the focus on the DC Circuit. Frankly, I think the matter is overblown.

So do you think that there's any time when a procedural supermajority is proper?

I think it was proper as was. It was originally to be used as a shield to avoid getting railroaded by a simple majority.

But it was not intended to be a vehicle for negating the results of elections. Filibustering a particularly odious nominee is one thing. Filibustering the idea of appointing any nominee is something else.

[Chris_H_2]

Listen, you're preaching to the converted on giving deference to a president's nomination so long as the person is (a) qualified, and (b) not a serial killer. The problem with both parties is that members have taken it upon themselves to define a person's qualifications based on their ideologies, and have tried to administer a litmus test to demonstrate that the nominee is "out of touch" or "too far to the [left or right]." I think it's despicable.

At the same time, I also see what's going on with the recent fights and, in particular, the opportunity that the Democrats see to facilitate the White House's agenda of legislating by regulation. Hence, the focus on the DC Circuit. Frankly, I think the matter is overblown.

So do you think that there's any time when a procedural supermajority is proper?

I think it was proper as was. It was originally to be used as a shield to avoid getting railroaded by a simple majority.

But it was not intended to be a vehicle for negating the results of elections. Filibustering a particularly odious nominee is one thing. Filibustering the idea of appointing any nominee is something else.

There's nothing new about the Republicans are doing. Democrats and Republicans do the same thing. It's the reason that Obama, when he was the junior senator from Illinois, railed against the idea of changing the rules. It's also the reason that Reid said he would never do it.

[Green Habit]

There's nothing new about the Republicans are doing. Democrats and Republicans do the same thing. It's the reason that Obama, when he was the junior senator from Illinois, railed against the idea of changing the rules. It's also the reason that Reid said he would never do it.

I think it's still a bad rule regardless if it's been around for a while or if both sides do it.

[stip]

Listen, you're preaching to the converted on giving deference to a president's nomination so long as the person is (a) qualified, and (b) not a serial killer. The problem with both parties is that members have taken it upon themselves to define a person's qualifications based on their ideologies, and have tried to administer a litmus test to demonstrate that the nominee is "out of touch" or "too far to the [left or right]." I think it's despicable.

At the same time, I also see what's going on with the recent fights and, in particular, the opportunity that the Democrats see to facilitate the White House's agenda of legislating by regulation. Hence, the focus on the DC Circuit. Frankly, I think the matter is overblown.

So do you think that there's any time when a procedural supermajority is proper?

I think it was proper as was. It was originally to be used as a shield to avoid getting railroaded by a simple majority.

But it was not intended to be a vehicle for negating the results of elections. Filibustering a particularly odious nominee is one thing. Filibustering the idea of appointing any nominee is something else.

There's nothing new about the Republicans are doing. Democrats and Republicans do the same thing. It's the reason that Obama, when he was the junior senator from Illinois, railed against the idea of changing the rules. It's also the reason that Reid said he would never do it.

This is pretty new, actually. Both in terms of the size and scope of what is happening. This goes beyond partisanship into the basic nullification of democratic rule.

[stip]

Fun fact. This may have shifted slightly, and of course the politics probably would not align directly like this, but the smallest 21 states make up 11% of the countries population and have the ability, via fillibuster, to thwart the will of the other 89%.

[Chris_H_2]

Fun fact. This may have shifted slightly, and of course the politics probably would not align directly like this, but the smallest 21 states make up 11% of the countries population and have the ability, via fillibuster, to thwart the will of the other 89%.

I suppose that you're equating the ideologies of certain members of Congress with the "will" of their constituents, no?