The Nuclear Option, our american filibuster |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
The Nuclear Option, our american filibuster |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() dripping destruction ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 ![]() |
Now, here's a little background for those of you who don't know about the nuclear option (or the filibuster).
the dems have 45 seats in the senate, there's one independent who often votes liberal, and 54 gops (grand old party= republican). a filibuster is where you talk something to death. the senate must let everyone speak about an issue before they vote, or they take a vote to close speeches (requries a 60%) now, the dems have been using the filibuster to stop GOP nominations, which the senate must approve. the GOP is angry= they won an election, now they want to be able to put thier judges up, and have thier contributers be made diplomates and embassadors. the nuclear option would get rid of the filibuster. they'd only need a 51% to stop filibusters then, easily gotten with 54 seats. NOW FOR THE PROMPT the nuclear option violates a tradition in the senate, the dems also threaten to stop every single piece of legislation if the nuclear option is employed. so: do you think the nuclear option should be employed? and if you say no, which side should back down/ what should be done? |
|
|
![]() |
*mipadi* |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Guest ![]() |
The legislature shouldn't have the mentality that the group in charge gets to call all the shots. Issues like Supreme Court justices should be dealt with in a bilateral manner. The reason Ginsburg and Breyer received such high confirmation votes is because Clinton consulted with Republic congressional leaders (namely, Orrin Hatch) before offering their nominations, and they were candidates both the Democrats and Republicans approved of. The last couple years, however, the Republicans have let their majority go to their head, and they, especially Bush, have repeatedly snubbed Congressional Democrats. The Republicans might have the power, but given the number of close votes, as well as the dismal approval rating of President Bush, they really shouldn't be taking advantage of their position. Not everyone in the country approves of their actions, and maybe, with O'Connor retiring, the time has some to work together, instead of working against each other.
As a side note, I feel that confirmation vote rules should be changed to require a supermajority of the Senate. The ratification of treaties, for example, requires not a simple majority, but a 2/3 majority of the Senate; the same goes for veto overrides. This means that a party can't have a simple majority to win. I think this seems appropriate for confirmation votes--it would require a bilateral agreement, and prevent what the Founding Fathers called "tyranny of the majority." |
|
|
![]() ![]() |