The Levee's Gonna BreakFollow

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. The removal of the filibuster for appointments is the Democrats doubling down (foolishly IMO) on their own extreme partisanship. I also think you not quite grasping (or you are and are choosing to ignore) the bigger issue here. It's not about whether you or I think the current crop of appointments are reasonable or not, or whether GOP blocking them is reasonable or not. It's that eliminating the ability of the minority party to block a nominee at all, ever again is guaranteed to cause problems unless we assume that no nominee that will ever proposed by a majority party for the remainder of our nation's existence will ever be a poor partisan choice for which the minority party maybe should be able to block it.

Worse, by doing this, you vastly increase the odds of extremely partisan appointments being made in that future. It's a self-feeding problem. And it was a terribly bad and short sighted idea for the Dems to do this. They basically just broke our confirmation process.



Works the other way too though Joph. The same power has been used by Democrats as well. That power is what forces the majority party to actually work with the minority party. It's what requires them to compromise. It's why nominations tend to be mixed affairs regardless of which party is in power, because in order for the majority party to get their favorite guy in position A, they tend to have to give the minority party a pick for position B (or short list of their choosing). This allows us to prevent any administration from becoming too partisan, and has the horrible effect (I'm being sarcastic here) of ensuring that there's likely to be a voice in the room with a different political perspective when big decisions are being made, and perhaps reduce the likelihood of echo-chamber politics.


This is a terrible idea for the Dems. Seriously? If they could not get appointments through, it was not because of GOP unwillingness to deal, but with their own unwillingness to do so. The minority party is *always* willing to deal on appointments. I suspect that's the part that most people don't really understand. It's the Dems who are driving partisanship in our government. And they just took it a huge step farther forward with this ill thought change.

How much stuff does it take to fill a buster anyways? Is there a standard buster size? if so, what do they fill it with? I mean, you could get a bunch more ground cinimon into a buster than solid cinnamon bark sheets, just because of the particulate density and all.

Do they have to unfill them when they are done? or is there a buster bunker somewhere they just stash them in, forlorn and forgotton by time?

How times have changed...

Ironically, Gbaji was agreeing with me at the time. Because I was criticizing the Democrats using the filibuster to block Bush's judicial nominees.

Edit: Whoops... that particular thread about about Bolton nominated for the UN Ambassador job. I criticized filibustering judicial nominees in a different thread.

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 7:50pm by Jophiel

I, for one, did not expect this stance eight hours ago. You are truly a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 8:44pm by lolgaxe

This isn't about political parties. It's about executive appointments. These appointments have to be approved by the Senate. Not selected by the senate - approved. Now it only takes half the senate. I'm ok with that. I think 1/2 the senate approval on a potential judge or cabinet position holder that has already been heavily vetted is sufficient.

I suppose next you'll be telling how your current flip-flopping position on the filibuster is not at all inconsistent with your previous position.

OMFG I TURNED GREEN

Let the karma ping pong begin!

I made someone turn green!

This is fun.

That's okay, I'm still not used to you being green, red would be a bit much.

Don't say I never did nuthin for ya.

"Some of them are gay. And brown. And women."

And sometimes all three!