When the Democrats regain the Senate...

[Richard]

Well?  What do you think?  I obviously voted Yes.  If they are opposed to it, they should change it back when they regain control, right?

[Brandon H]

What they should do, or what they will do?

They should, but if they have a majority, especially if they have a Democratic President, they won't. And the Republicans will try to filibuster judicial nominees, but they won't be able to. On the other hand, if the Republicans don't exercise the Constitutional / Nuclear option now, the Democrats may try to do so themself if / when they regain control.

[TheresNoMoney]

On the other hand, if the Republicans don't exercise the Constitutional / Nuclear option now, the Democrats may try to do so themself if / when they regain control.

No they won't.

[Richard]

What *should* they do?  Scoonie, you do, of course, agree that the filibuster should be put back in place when the Democrats come back, right?

[TheresNoMoney]

What *should* they do?  Scoonie, you do, of course, agree that the filibuster should be put back in place when the Democrats come back, right?

Yes, the fillibuster should be available for either party. If the Democrats tried to nominate wacko judges like the Republicans have, I would fully expect and support the Republicans using the fillibuster.

[Richard]

What *should* they do?  Scoonie, you do, of course, agree that the filibuster should be put back in place when the Democrats come back, right?

Yes, the fillibuster should be available for either party. If the Democrats tried to nominate wacko judges like the Republicans have, I would fully expect and support the Republicans using the fillibuster.

Excellent.  I, and most likely most Republicans, are fully behind you putting back the filibuster when the Democrats regain control of the Senate (if that happens).

[minionofmidas]

That's why they're calling it "the nuclear option" - because just like with a nuke, everybody knows that everybody will be worse off afterwards, therefore neither side will use it. Unless one side is gone completely and irredeemably bonkers.

Anyways, that's the theory. It would follow from the theory that they won't change back, that the filibuster will be dead forever, and so will be moderates as a political force.
It would also follow from the theory that Republicans will likely not do it in the end.

[TheresNoMoney]

Excellent.  I, and most likely most Republicans, are fully behind you putting back the filibuster when the Democrats regain control of the Senate (if that happens).

But I'm sure you support them eliminating it now, right?

[Richard]

Excellent.  I, and most likely most Republicans, are fully behind you putting back the filibuster when the Democrats regain control of the Senate (if that happens).

But I'm sure you support them eliminating it now, right?

Absolutely.

[TheresNoMoney]

Absolutely.

No deal, my friend. You are what's wrong with America right now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, what the Democrats should do is propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a three-fifths vote for the Senate to approve judges.

[Blue Rectangle]

No, what the Democrats should do is propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a three-fifths vote for the Senate to approve judges.

That would be the honest move.  This debate isn't about the First Amendment or the right of senators to debate.  That was made clear when Reid turned down Frist's "100 hours" option.  This debate is about whether a supermajority should be required for judicial confirmations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, what the Democrats should do is propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a three-fifths vote for the Senate to approve judges.

That would be the honest move.

More importantly, it would be the right move.  I don't want judges appointed for life by narrow majorities.

[Blue Rectangle]

No, what the Democrats should do is propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a three-fifths vote for the Senate to approve judges.

That would be the honest move.

More importantly, it would be the right move.  I don't want judges appointed for life by narrow majorities.

I'm not sure I agree, but...you do realize that such a amendment doesn't have a chance, right?

[Gabu]

Excellent.  I, and most likely most Republicans, are fully behind you putting back the filibuster when the Democrats regain control of the Senate (if that happens).

But I'm sure you support them eliminating it now, right?

Absolutely.

Well, at least you don't even try to hide your blatantly Machiavellian motives.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What makes you think that the Republicans won't put the rule back in between election day and when their terms expire if they lose control of the Senate?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, what the Democrats should do is propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a three-fifths vote for the Senate to approve judges.

That would be the honest move.

More importantly, it would be the right move.  I don't want judges appointed for life by narrow majorities.

I'm not sure I agree, but...you do realize that such a amendment doesn't have a chance, right?

It would be useful to the Democrats as a club with which to bash the GOP as extremists, if nothing else, and if the GOP got bruised enough by it they might just start supporting it as well.  However, I don't see any significant political effect coming out of this mess unless Bush appoints some controverial Supreme Court Justices that end up being the deciding factor in some controversial cases.  Until that happens this is all just a bunch of hot air that will be ignored by the vast majority of voters.

[Blue Rectangle]

No, what the Democrats should do is propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a three-fifths vote for the Senate to approve judges.

That would be the honest move.

More importantly, it would be the right move.  I don't want judges appointed for life by narrow majorities.

I'm not sure I agree, but...you do realize that such a amendment doesn't have a chance, right?

It would be useful to the Democrats as a club with which to bash the GOP as extremists, if nothing else, and if the GOP got bruised enough by it they might just start supporting it as well.  However, I don't see any significant political effect coming out of this mess unless Bush appoints some controverial Supreme Court Justices that end up being the deciding factor in some controversial cases.  Until that happens this is all just a bunch of hot air that will be ignored by the vast majority of voters.

It's too late for that.  The Democrats opening move was to claim that the "nuclear" option was bad because it limited their right to free speech.  Changing tack to claim a right to supermajority opinion would be admitting that their original stance was BS.

[A18]

No (R/L)

Only a mere majority should be necessary to confirm judges. Almost every Democrat-appointed judge is a crazy extremist, and now they're calling people who actually believe in following the Constitution unfit to serve. The thing needs to be eradicated forever.

[Gabu]

No (R/L)

Only a mere majority should be necessary to confirm judges. Almost every Democrat-appointed judge is a crazy extremist, and now they're calling people who actually believe in following the Constitution unfit to serve. The thing needs to be eradicated forever.

Um, wouldn't making only a majority required make it a lot easier for Democrats to appoint judges when they have power?

[Machiavelli]

Excellent.  I, and most likely most Republicans, are fully behind you putting back the filibuster when the Democrats regain control of the Senate (if that happens).

But I'm sure you support them eliminating it now, right?

Absolutely.

Well, at least you don't even try to hide your blatantly Machiavellian motives.

YOU CALLED

[Shira]

Democrats are not going to regain control of the senate. A state like ID provides the same number of senators as CA. Therefore the Democrats gradually will lose their ND, WV, MT, SD, LA, AR senators. They won't be compensated in ME, NH and RI. The guy from RI and the ladies from ME are moderate. NH and ME are blue but not heavily blue.

[Gabu]

Democrats are not going to regain control of the senate. A state like ID provides the same number of senators as CA. Therefore the Democrats gradually will lose their ND, WV, MT, SD, LA, AR senators. They won't be compensated in ME, NH and RI. The guy from RI and the ladies from ME are moderate. NH and ME are blue but not heavily blue.

In 1947, the composition of Congress looked like this:

Senate

Democrats: 45
Republicans: 51

House

Democrats: 188
Republicans: 246

In 1965, 18 years later, the composition of Congress looked like this:

Senate

Democrats: 68
Republicans: 32

House

Democrats: 295
Republicans: 140

I would be careful when professing that something will never, ever happen in politics.

[A18]

No (R/L)

Only a mere majority should be necessary to confirm judges. Almost every Democrat-appointed judge is a crazy extremist, and now they're calling people who actually believe in following the Constitution unfit to serve. The thing needs to be eradicated forever.

Um, wouldn't making only a majority required make it a lot easier for Democrats to appoint judges when they have power?

Republicans don't keep people off the bench for supporting Roe v. Wade like Democrats keep judges off the bench for opposing it.