Comments on: How not to lure us back to the “new” GOP http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Thu, 31 May 2012 02:04:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Wrong politics on David Patterson :slashingtongue http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-232189 Wrong politics on David Patterson :slashingtongue Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:09:50 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-232189 [...] How not to lure us back to the “new” GOP (themoderatevoice.com) [...] [...] How not to lure us back to the “new” GOP (themoderatevoice.com) [...]

]]> By: How Not to Get Us Back to the “New” GOP | Republicans United. http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-232029 How Not to Get Us Back to the “New” GOP | Republicans United. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:30:32 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-232029 [...] From Jazz Shaw at the Moderate Voice: [...] [...] From Jazz Shaw at the Moderate Voice: [...]

]]> By: pacatrue http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231934 pacatrue Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:31:41 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231934 Completely agree. I am trying to say simply that Republicans, as the current minority party, do have a right to filibuster certain nominee, but they shouldn't shut down the judiciary nor prevent the majority from having say as well. I have no idea how to find that correct balance. Completely agree. I am trying to say simply that Republicans, as the current minority party, do have a right to filibuster certain nominee, but they shouldn't shut down the judiciary nor prevent the majority from having say as well. I have no idea how to find that correct balance.

]]> By: CStanley http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231930 CStanley Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:24:06 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231930 I agree with the principle but of course the problem is getting anyone to define what is a reasonable number to filibuster, or what the criteria should be for those exceptions. I agree with the principle but of course the problem is getting anyone to define what is a reasonable number to filibuster, or what the criteria should be for those exceptions.

]]> By: pacatrue http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231927 pacatrue Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:16:32 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231927 I just wanted to add, Jazz, that I followed your link to the Allahpundit's post that a slight majority of Republicans would rather lose with a party they always agree with than win with a party they only mostly agree with, and the comments all pretty much go with the first position. Those commenters don't want your (or my) kind around. I just wanted to add, Jazz, that I followed your link to the Allahpundit's post that a slight majority of Republicans would rather lose with a party they always agree with than win with a party they only mostly agree with, and the comments all pretty much go with the first position. Those commenters don't want your (or my) kind around.

]]> By: pacatrue http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231920 pacatrue Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:58:20 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231920 My understanding is that only 10 nominees were being stopped by the minority party pre-Gang of 14. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14</a>) A far larger number had gone through, though I haven't been able to find that tally. I did find the number of appellate court nominees which was 46, 36 of whom went through. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_%28filibuster" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_(fi...</a>)) So the exact percentage of blocks depends on who you count. If it's the percent of all judicial nominees needing Senate approval, the percent is tiny; if it's just the percent of appellate court, then it's around a quarter (which is higher than I would like).<br><br>Regardless, I'm not trying to say Dems good; Republicans bad. The point is that it seems fair to me for the minority party to have some say in judicial nominees and so using the filibuster on a small number seems fair. Using it to block almost all nominees isn't. And so, if the Republicans were stopping just a few people they had particularly strong objections to, and not almost all, then I would be okay with that position. My understanding is that only 10 nominees were being stopped by the minority party pre-Gang of 14. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14) A far larger number had gone through, though I haven't been able to find that tally. I did find the number of appellate court nominees which was 46, 36 of whom went through. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_(fi…)) So the exact percentage of blocks depends on who you count. If it's the percent of all judicial nominees needing Senate approval, the percent is tiny; if it's just the percent of appellate court, then it's around a quarter (which is higher than I would like).

Regardless, I'm not trying to say Dems good; Republicans bad. The point is that it seems fair to me for the minority party to have some say in judicial nominees and so using the filibuster on a small number seems fair. Using it to block almost all nominees isn't. And so, if the Republicans were stopping just a few people they had particularly strong objections to, and not almost all, then I would be okay with that position.

]]> By: CStanley http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231915 CStanley Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:46:43 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231915 <i>I'd personally like to see the filibuster used the way I believe it was used during the Bush years. A significant majority of appointees who are qualified should go through on a 50/50 vote, and the minority party can filibuster a minority of appointees that they particularly disagree with. I don't believe that is the current Republican strategy. They are delaying or filibustering virtually all.</i><br><br>Um, I think you missed a few minidramas there. The scenario you describe was the outcome of the Gang of 14 compromise deal. Prior to that, and the reason that the bipartisan compromise became necessary, is that the Dems were holding up a large number of nominations. I'd personally like to see the filibuster used the way I believe it was used during the Bush years. A significant majority of appointees who are qualified should go through on a 50/50 vote, and the minority party can filibuster a minority of appointees that they particularly disagree with. I don't believe that is the current Republican strategy. They are delaying or filibustering virtually all.

Um, I think you missed a few minidramas there. The scenario you describe was the outcome of the Gang of 14 compromise deal. Prior to that, and the reason that the bipartisan compromise became necessary, is that the Dems were holding up a large number of nominations.

]]> By: pacatrue http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231907 pacatrue Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:21:29 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231907 Yeah, NPR was playing these sorts of quotes from Sessions, McConnell, and such yesterday, followed by their current, opposite stance. Of course it's worth saying that if there are any Dems who are now huge opponents of the filibuster while having long diatribes about its fundamental importance just a few years ago (and I'm sure there are), then they deserve equal ridicule.<br><br>I'd personally like to see the filibuster used the way I believe it was used during the Bush years. A significant majority of appointees who are qualified should go through on a 50/50 vote, and the minority party can filibuster a minority of appointees that they particularly disagree with. I don't believe that is the current Republican strategy. They are delaying or filibustering virtually all. Yeah, NPR was playing these sorts of quotes from Sessions, McConnell, and such yesterday, followed by their current, opposite stance. Of course it's worth saying that if there are any Dems who are now huge opponents of the filibuster while having long diatribes about its fundamental importance just a few years ago (and I'm sure there are), then they deserve equal ridicule.

I'd personally like to see the filibuster used the way I believe it was used during the Bush years. A significant majority of appointees who are qualified should go through on a 50/50 vote, and the minority party can filibuster a minority of appointees that they particularly disagree with. I don't believe that is the current Republican strategy. They are delaying or filibustering virtually all.

]]> By: Jazz http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231906 Jazz Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:19:22 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231906 Actually, upon further reflection, I should have noted that the motion still passed. Should probably update. Actually, upon further reflection, I should have noted that the motion still passed. Should probably update.

]]> By: casualobserver http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231896 casualobserver Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:01:51 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231896 and while it is lame, the no's probably knew they didn't have the count beforehand and just cast the no for form over substance retaliation. Surprising Mr. Gang of 14 went down as a no on this. and while it is lame, the no's probably knew they didn't have the count beforehand and just cast the no for form over substance retaliation. Surprising Mr. Gang of 14 went down as a no on this.

]]> By: CStanley http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231891 CStanley Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:51:42 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231891 It's worth noting though that 10 GOP did vote to invoke cloture, including my state's Saxby Chambliss. I thought that I'd heard that Johnny Isakson did as well, but I don't see his name on the list of 10. It's worth noting though that 10 GOP did vote to invoke cloture, including my state's Saxby Chambliss. I thought that I'd heard that Johnny Isakson did as well, but I don't see his name on the list of 10.

]]> By: casualobserver http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231877 casualobserver Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:18:33 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231877 Agree, Jazz. The tu quoque arguments are pedantic whether voiced by Republican Senators today or TMV liberals for the last 11 months. Agree, Jazz. The tu quoque arguments are pedantic whether voiced by Republican Senators today or TMV liberals for the last 11 months.

]]> By: DLS http://themoderatevoice.com/53307/how-not-to-lure-us-back-to-the-new-gop/comment-page-1/#comment-231864 DLS Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:22:53 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53307#comment-231864 Yep -- pretty superficial non-alternative stuff they're "offering," Jazz. Continued irrelevence, it still seems. Yep — pretty superficial non-alternative stuff they're “offering,” Jazz. Continued irrelevence, it still seems.

]]>