Red Mosquito

Other than for amending the Constitution, requiring them sucks. Anyone with me?

Regardless of the politics, I'm very pleased to see Harry Reid finally use the nuclear option.

I, of course, know everything there is to know about supermajorities, but for the less enlightened and not so well educated among us - please comment some on the use and function of same.

I'm uneasy about this but it's become necessary.


TLDR version, Malice--a supermajority is when you need more than a regular majority to accomplish something. So for instance, overriding a veto requires a 2/3rds supermajority of both houses of Congress. Amending the Constitution requires a supermajority.

Voting to override a filibuster (cloture) requires a super majority. Currently you need 60 votes. This was not the intention of the founders, nor is it in the Constitution. It is a long standing practice reflecting the internal rules devised by the senate (so it's not unconstitutional either).

The existence of a fillibuster is not designed to work effectively with a parliamentary style of politics (party line voting), and since we've adopted that it in practice it makes it extraordinarily difficult to both pass laws (a larger issue) and have nominations approved (where the degree of obstruction across the board is pretty unprecedented). So rules changes in the Senate would address that.

actually do know that a supermajority is more than a regular majority and is needed to override a filibuster. but definitely appreciate the other comments in your post, stip.

so my question is now more about, in what ways is a supermajority now more necessary (?) than say 20 years ago (random year here, no idea how used it was then but it's certainly apparent that it's become a much more 'invoked' function over the last few years than I'd ever been aware of prior to the Obama administration....

what I 'sense' is a supermajority rule (or process, or as whatever it's best classified) is used mostly now to keep legislation from being passed or to keep 'the other guys' from accomplishing... well, anything?

I'm interested to understand why the supermajority is so prevalent (apparently prevalent?) now and if it was intended for the destructive potential that it seems to be used for now?

It means more is getting passed now, for better and for worse.

Although what Reid did today is what spawned this thread, this has been gnawing at me for reasons beyond DC. More specifically, here in Idaho we have a statewide law that mandates that bond measures must get passed with a 2/3rds supermajority of the voters. For so many times, Boise has tried to pass bonds to upgrade public infrastructure, and it's usually only education bonds that can pass that ridiculously high bar. This month we had two bonds fail with about 64% of the voters saying yes. What really kills me is why on earth people in Sandpoint or Rexburg care whether or not Boiseans decide to tax themselves for these things.

Electromatic wrote:It means more is getting passed now, for better and for worse.

Well, for practical purposes right now it only means that it'll only require 51 votes to get appointments confirmed, given that different parties hold the congressional houses. Mitch McConnell has threatened to go nuclear on everything if the GOP ever gets control of everything, to which I say, "OK".

Yeah ultimately, I mean it's hard enough to get half of the people to agree on anything remotely controversial so especially in local governments specifically for issues like SPLOST's and Bonds I don't see the need for a supermajority.

That should be reserved in my opinion for matters like amending the constitution.

This is kind of a joke and simply an irrational response to the attempt to pack the DC Circuit with judges who would be more receptive to implementing a lot of big labor and EPA regulations. The're trying to expand the number of jurists in the DC Circuit even though there is no evidence of a crowded docket or a backlog of cases.

Chris_H_2 wrote:This is kind of a joke and simply an irrational response to the attempt to pack the DC Circuit with judges who would be more receptive to implementing a lot of big labor and EPA regulations. The're trying to expand the number of jurists in the DC Circuit even though there is no evidence of a crowded docket or a backlog of cases.

They can't expand the size of the DC Circuit without passing legislation, can they? Otherwise, I see that there's three vacancies on that court. Filling vacancies isn't packing a court.

exactly. It is called filling a vacancy. This is not 1937.

Also the sitting judges are helped by a series of 6 semi retired judges, of whom 5 out of the 6 are conservative, but regardless, vacancies should be filled.

malice wrote:actually do know that a supermajority is more than a regular majority and is needed to override a filibuster. but definitely appreciate the other comments in your post, stip.

so my question is now more about, in what ways is a supermajority now more necessary (?) than say 20 years ago (random year here, no idea how used it was then but it's certainly apparent that it's become a much more 'invoked' function over the last few years than I'd ever been aware of prior to the Obama administration....

what I 'sense' is a supermajority rule (or process, or as whatever it's best classified) is used mostly now to keep legislation from being passed or to keep 'the other guys' from accomplishing... well, anything?

I'm interested to understand why the supermajority is so prevalent (apparently prevalent?) now and if it was intended for the destructive potential that it seems to be used for now?

a supermajority is now necessary because routine matters that previously only required a majority are being subject to rampant and repeated parliamentary tactics that were intended for use on issues of 'go to the wall' importance

stip wrote:exactly. It is called filling a vacancy. This is not 1937.

Also the sitting judges are helped by a series of 6 semi retired judges, of whom 5 out of the 6 are conservative, but regardless, vacancies should be filled.

This is kind of ridiculous, considering the number of vacancies in other circuits and in district courts, and also considering the DC Circuit's docket does not place an immediate need on filling the vacancies (particularly compared to other circuits).

If Congress wants to direct its ire on the number of vacancies in the Northern District of Illinois for instance, that would be OK. But then again, that district court doesn't carry the influence as the DC Circuit and isn't a ladder to the Supreme Court.

We all know why this is getting the attention it's getting, and it's pretty stupid.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:This is kind of a joke and simply an irrational response to the attempt to pack the DC Circuit with judges who would be more receptive to implementing a lot of big labor and EPA regulations. The're trying to expand the number of jurists in the DC Circuit even though there is no evidence of a crowded docket or a backlog of cases.

They can't expand the size of the DC Circuit without passing legislation, can they? Otherwise, I see that there's three vacancies on that court. Filling vacancies isn't packing a court.

How would you prioritize filling vacancies among the circuits and district courts?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:This is kind of a joke and simply an irrational response to the attempt to pack the DC Circuit with judges who would be more receptive to implementing a lot of big labor and EPA regulations. The're trying to expand the number of jurists in the DC Circuit even though there is no evidence of a crowded docket or a backlog of cases.

They can't expand the size of the DC Circuit without passing legislation, can they? Otherwise, I see that there's three vacancies on that court. Filling vacancies isn't packing a court.

How would you prioritize filling vacancies among the circuits and district courts?

I don't know, I'm not the president and I don't have people giving me advice as to where my priorities should be. But the bottom line is if any administration decides that it wants to fill a nomination anywhere on the courts, it shouldn't require more than a majority of senators to confirm the nomination.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:This is kind of a joke and simply an irrational response to the attempt to pack the DC Circuit with judges who would be more receptive to implementing a lot of big labor and EPA regulations. The're trying to expand the number of jurists in the DC Circuit even though there is no evidence of a crowded docket or a backlog of cases.

They can't expand the size of the DC Circuit without passing legislation, can they? Otherwise, I see that there's three vacancies on that court. Filling vacancies isn't packing a court.

How would you prioritize filling vacancies among the circuits and district courts?

I don't know, I'm not the president and I don't have people giving me advice as to where my priorities should be. But the bottom line is if any administration decides that it wants to fill a nomination anywhere on the courts, it shouldn't require more than a majority of senators to confirm the nomination.

Really?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:This is kind of a joke and simply an irrational response to the attempt to pack the DC Circuit with judges who would be more receptive to implementing a lot of big labor and EPA regulations. The're trying to expand the number of jurists in the DC Circuit even though there is no evidence of a crowded docket or a backlog of cases.

They can't expand the size of the DC Circuit without passing legislation, can they? Otherwise, I see that there's three vacancies on that court. Filling vacancies isn't packing a court.

How would you prioritize filling vacancies among the circuits and district courts?

I don't know, I'm not the president and I don't have people giving me advice as to where my priorities should be. But the bottom line is if any administration decides that it wants to fill a nomination anywhere on the courts, it shouldn't require more than a majority of senators to confirm the nomination.

Really?

She wasn't able to garner a majority of votes anyway, so I don't know why you used her as an example. But you could have posted any person you want regardless of the qualifications: if the president likes him/her enough to be a nominee, and most of the Senate agrees, then that person should get the job. Whether or not it was a wise decision is a separate consideration.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:This is kind of a joke and simply an irrational response to the attempt to pack the DC Circuit with judges who would be more receptive to implementing a lot of big labor and EPA regulations. The're trying to expand the number of jurists in the DC Circuit even though there is no evidence of a crowded docket or a backlog of cases.

They can't expand the size of the DC Circuit without passing legislation, can they? Otherwise, I see that there's three vacancies on that court. Filling vacancies isn't packing a court.

How would you prioritize filling vacancies among the circuits and district courts?

I don't know, I'm not the president and I don't have people giving me advice as to where my priorities should be. But the bottom line is if any administration decides that it wants to fill a nomination anywhere on the courts, it shouldn't require more than a majority of senators to confirm the nomination.

Really?

She wasn't able to garner a majority of votes anyway, so I don't know why you used her as an example. But you could have posted any person you want regardless of the qualifications: if the president likes him/her enough to be a nominee, and most of the Senate agrees, then that person should get the job. Whether or not it was a wise decision is a separate consideration.

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.

Chris_H_2 wrote: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?

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote: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.

What is the use in excluding Supreme Court nominees from this rule?