$1:
Those same statements eight years ago still apply today. It's a cynical power grab by the party in power, not a political reform.
Those statements don't apply today, at least not sufficiently to warrant the Filibuster. The viability and value of the tool is based on it's utility; how, where and why it was used. For those comments to be true, the tool must be used to that end and in that capacity, and I've not seen evidence that it has been used in that capacity. Those statements discussed a tool that, for the majority of it's lifetime, had been used as a legitimate tool in rare moments when policy needed to be blocked for greater discourse on issues key to the nation. It had even been limited down to this in the past, thanks to other senators who believed they, as a minority, should be able to completely control the order of the senate, and blocked the arming of merchant ships during a world war.
As far as I can tell, the majority of these blocks have not been of such key importance that they needed to be blocked or filibustered. Tell me, what appointments, such as those to the courts, were of issues of such magnitude that ti was necessary? They want to reduce the size of the court? Then introduce legislation to reduce it's size. If it passes, it passes, through democratic means. Instead they block additional judges. How is that fulfilling the purpose of the Filibuster?
The problem with the Filibuster is that is inherently is used the same way regardless of the utility of it, and there is no cost to using it for a marginal matter in contrast to the major issues it SHOULD be used for. Without that cost, this powerful tool could be used frivolously. That's an issue. It's been corrected.
$1:
The whole point of the filibuster is to give groups not in power a voice to challenge legislation and force a compromise, like what happened back in 2005. You're cheering said removal of a tool for minorities to check the majority, while thinking the minority will still be respected?
The first thing I noticed here was your specific lack of response to my analysis of the situation we have now. It is one of two things:
1) The majority elected into government gets what it wants. This shouldn't be along party lines, and wouldn't be if groups like the Tea Party get kicked out of congress and stop the precedence of gutter politics in the house.
2) The minorities are able to control what gets through, democracy be damned, unless a party wins an election in a landslide. Minorities are meant to be respected, as in their opinion is available and discourse is allowed so as to sway others, and so as to get messages to the people via the media. Minorities are not meant to be able to rule, block, and obstruct anything they want with impunity. If you say democrats were bad for doing this, you recognize it was an issue then, and it's an issue now.
Well, now it isn't, because it doesn't exist anymore.
The Filibuster was a tool for a minority to control the majority, to essentially ignore the results of elections and allow the gutters of the political spectrum to run rampant. Those minorities and majorities were not meant to be along party lines, and historically, things were not along such lines to the same degree as they are today. I say, fuck the extreme left and right, they shouldn't have the capacity they do to control the house. The Tea Party is an institutionalized body and hence gets a lot of flack for it, especially since they are wholeheartedly in support of the second form of government. I say, you have 28% of the government; that doesn't translate into nigh 100% of the air time.
The Filibuster turned from being used to force discussion on a topic to force discussion to end. The purpose here wasn't to have more said on a topic; it was so that whatever was happening, legislation, nominations, appointments, wouldn't happen. That is the opposite of the purpose of the Filibuster, where it is used to shut down discussion, and where it used simply as a tool to say "no, because I don't want to," but in multi-thousand word speeches that rarely related to the topic matter at hand. That should never be enough to use the Filibuster.
$1:
You say the courts will take this burden now, but what started this whole nuclear option was court appointments to the DC court of appeals, basically the last stop for most court cases before the Supreme Court. Now, instead of finding political appointments that can satisfy both sides, this allows the majority to choose whoever they want without challenge.
No, the nuclear option has been discussed for months of other blockages. These blocks in the DC circuit were more or less the straw on the camel's back, where it came to the forefront of debate and the Democrats didn't back down.
I already covered this in my last post:
"No offense, but the current standard is that the court will remain Republican without removing the Filibuster, so what is there to lose from a Democratic standpoint? Either they never get a chance to influence court structures, or to fill seats in government bodies the Republicans don't like (but can't kill with actual legislation, because democratically it's a no go), or they do this, do get a chance to fill those seats, and at least have some influence as the party in power. Sure, it might come back to bite them in the ass... but right now, they've already got the Filibuster tearing in nicely there, so what would be the point?"
Essentially, it was already slanted towards the Republicans. The attempt to block this was to KEEP the courts Republican. Essentially, the Democrats were told "nominate Republicans, or we don't let you put anyone in." Exactly how is that better than what to described, Commanderkai? Please tell me how it is better that the Filibuster was allowing the exact harms you described, but with the Republicans in control, even though they were not elected to power and the Democrats have a duty to fill those spots?
Parties in power rarely chose people who were not of their affiliation. Most of the time, they were allowed in because normal, rational governments recognize normal, rational judges will act normal and rationally in decisions depending on their expertise. This is as true now as it was then. The difference? The Republicans cannot block the nominations on the basis of "we want to keep the power we built when we were elected, and when you allowed our nominations in, as was established precedence." History is of significant import here. These blocks weren't about ability or capacity; it was about Republicans wanting to keep control of the court, A, and wanting to force their version of legislation on limiting that court through without actually using legislation, B. Neither A or B are legitimate uses for the Filibuster by the very definitions discussed or provided by yourself.
Finally, if one side consistently demands that they are Republican, with no negotiations... exactly HOW is that better than this situation, where a simple majority with the legitimacy of the people's vote behind them are making those decisions?
$1:
You point out that partisan politics led up to this, and you're right, but you solely focus on the Tea Party while completely ignoring the party in power. All the Senate Democrats had to do was compromise to satisfy the moderate Republicans of the Senate, but they didn't bother. You'd blame the Republicans, when I'd argue there's more of a diverse mix of political views in the Republicans, even WITH the Tea Party, than the Senate Democrats as of late.
False. I will discuss this "but the Democrats" thing later, and already discussed it a bit earlier (I edited this somewhat).
If you argue that position, you are ignoring the massive degree of control the Tea Party has over the candidates of all primaries and the decisions of other Republicans, including those who don't agree with them. You don't agree and you are ousted. You are a democrat in hiding to be purged. It has to be one party, one mind.
The funny thing is, I agree there is a broader view in the Republicans. The distance between the Tea Party and the centrists is pretty massive. Even though the Republicans who have different views can't voice shit under the current paradigm, there are a lot of people in it who aren't the massively right-wing part of the party. It's just that that part of the party has massive control over those who are more centrist, and hence they are largely ignored. The Democrats haven't that degree of power shift towards the progressive part in their party, nor can progressives control the centrists in the Democratic party.
$1:
No kidding. Was I not posting how this is a partisan power grab by the party in power in the Senate? Of course, on this site, and through leftist pundits, Republicans are blamed, because, Tea Party, or something. Of course, I strangely don't hear you mentioning the fact that there are still enough Republican senators that are considered "R.I.N.O.s" by more conservative individuals (I'm sure Bart can give you a comprehensive list, but the first that comes to mind? John McCain) that compromise can still be reached. The nuclear option was used because the Democrats in power don't want to compromise anymore on political appointments, opening up for purely partisan choices.
No, see, the difference is that you are calling it a partisan power grab, with emphasis on the latter, and I view the issue as partisanship itself, which this is all correcting. Unless you count getting the power you are supposed to be exercising in the first place, it isn't so much a power grab as much as power retrieval. The Republicans SHOULD have gotten rid of the Filibuster years ago. The Democrats are doing it now. Good on them.
If you want to know why the Tea Party is to blame, then don't ignore my analysis of why the Tea Party is to blame; I offered you a reason why I feel it is down to the Tea Party, and not only do you dodge it or demand I talk about the Democrats more (which, ironically, you didn't prove was a necessity, since I was discussing marginal impacts in my post), but you instead attack other people who are not me, like somehow I am part of this conspiracy of the mass media. I don't care if you feel others have unfairly targeted the Tea Party; I am not those other people, deal with my post which is here and now. I'm not going to be involved in feeding a sense of victimization, nor is it sufficient defense in this discussion.
And no, compromise can't be reached, because of the Tea Party. If you go against the grain, you get targeted by various foundations and conservative action funds for replacement. Lindsey Graham, Boehner, McCain, many others all are now facing Tea Party challengers in their primary because they dared to question the Tea Party. When you are in constant worry of losing your seat, because the Tea Party has that degree of control in Republican primaries to make it happen, you are less likely to make decisions that may anger the rightest of the right wing. It's a problem unique to the Republicans; you don't see a concentrated movement demanding purity amongst the democrat ranks, nor massive drives to get rid of democrats who are not sufficiently progressive. The very term RINO indicates their standing in the Republican party. There is not a comparable body on the left; yet somehow, I am supposed to provide equal attention to democrats and republicans.
Tell me, Commanderkai -- exactly WHAT are Democrats compromising with, when those who do compromise as people in the house are supposed to do are ostracized from the party? Exactly how does Bart's post NOT demonstrate the issues here? Either you run with the Tea Party, or during the next primary, where they have a lot more power than they do in the general electorate, the Tea Party will knock you out for someone even more conservative, and even less willing to negotiate. Notice, Commanderkai, that men like Cruz and Paul lambasted Boehner and others in the Republican leadership for daring to even consider the idea of negotiations. Those repercussions on the negotiators is now being felt. That response of Bart's exists directly BECAUSE Republicans who are RINOs dared to negotiate. Now they are no better than democrats, "the enemy." And now their jobs and positions are at risk.
Have you considered that the reason why a bevy of media and, I must remark, corporate and business oriented newspapers have all been significantly anti-Republican in the past few months is because maybe, perhaps, their criticism is valid? Maybe it is because the Tea Party IS at fault? Because as time has gone on, more and more of the people who once supported the Republicans in their actions have noticed that their recent actions are questionable. The government shutdown shook a lot of the business community, big and small, and a lot of people wondered why we should support people who are willing to do anything as long as it potentially gets them what they want.
Secondly, seriously? "On this site, Republicans are blamed?" First of all, there are people here who believe that, and that's not a bad thing -- generally, we should be open to people of other political swings (unlike the Tea Party, who view outsiders as enemies unless they agree 100%). I find it funny that I, a person who has more times than not ended up debating against the people who were crazy on the left side of the spectrum, is being included in this apparent CKA slant, and essentially being told I'm not conservative enough to discuss this, since otherwise I must be too biased like the media or this site. Secondly, this forum is supportive of the Tea Party more often than I think you're willing to admit. This site has more Tea Party members and supporters than I have seen on any other forum I am a member on, including those not oriented towards Canadian politics, and a horde of supporters on this site are right-wing. N_Fiddledog, jj2424, Vamp, Martin, Bart, yourself, Teikatsu, and others consistently support the Tea Party vocally on here, every time it comes up. Others, like Psudo or Dan, come to your support at various points as well. You guys are not in a minority; even when I left, this site had taken a swing to the right-wing... and this site is definitely much more conservative now then it was when I was last here six months ago.
I don't care if you feel like a victim of political persuasion. My focus on Republicans is because they are utilizing the Filibuster now, when it is being removed, and because I view the Tea Party as an issue and you don't. If the democrats had a Tea Party of some sort, especially when THEY were using the Filibusters, I would talk more about them. And don't even try to use the Occupy Movement as an example, they were the most useless protest movement to arise from 2008-2012 and caused marginal political change.
As it is, things aren't equal in the situations between democrats and republicans. This is simple reality. Appealing to my emotions is a logical fallacy that won't change my mind.
$1:
For a number of paragraphs, you focus purely on how the Republicans (because of the Tea Party, of course) have somehow become a parliamentary voting bloc, while utterly ignoring the Democrats. Tell me, who is the John McCain of the Senate Democrats? Is there one anymore? If this vote is anything to go by, there isn't one. And yet, the Republicans have a partisan problem.
Well, yeah, I did remark more on the Tea Party. First of all, Bart discussed the Tea Party swinging to power, so of course in a response to a post about the Tea Party I'm going to talk about the Tea Party. This isn't exactly revolutionary forum discourse.
Plus, when we look at why something has changed, you typically look at the causal factor. An analysis of the party making use of Filibusters over the last five years is important when deciding whether or not there was an issue, no? It's not as if I was going to write a post about getting rid of the Filibusters and then completely ignore the party that was making use of them. It should be noted, for the record, that I stated had the situation been reversed, the Republicans would have been able to get the same by from me on making this decision. I also remarked on the growing polarization prior to the Tea Party. Finally, I noted that the Democrats are similarly going more to the left. While you have been busy being outraged that I talked about Republicans (how dare I!), I spent time talking about both parties. However, I will not let my analysis suffer out of some need to falsely equivocate the two parties, and give them equal time in a situation where there is not equal blame, equal relevance, equal power or equal history of filibuster use. Nor will I yield when your response is trying to imply victimization rather than disputing why I should discuss the Tea Party factually.
I find it fascinating, for the record, that Republicans and their supporters consistently decry the growing progressive movement in the democrats without noticing that the Tea Party is the most excessive example of direct and consistent partisanship, and that without that degree of gutter politics, the democrats would not get away with their general movement to that far along the spectrum either. The Tea Party swept into power on the basis they wouldn't negotiate; no to taxation, no to spending, no to Obama! No compromise, no retreat! Yet when confronted on this, Republicans complain that it is because Democrats don't compromise that there's a problem. Stick to the absolute purity and perfect form of your values, no matter what -- unless you're not a member of the Tea Party and the Republicans they coerce, then it's wrong! Somewhat inconsistent, don't you think?
That they hate remarks about obstructionism when they voted in a group of politicians who specifically stated they would not negotiate, as if the people criticizing them as a movement is wrong. They aren't using the Filibuster to engage in discourse, they're using it to completely shut that discourse down, and that's the issue. You cannot say the democrats are the problem for being intransigent when the very strategy, broadly supported by the Tea Party supporters, has been heavily oriented around obstructing what happens. When you are in a situation where negotiation is a dirty word, it is not the onus of the ruling party to negotiate themselves down to whatever the Tea Party was willing to accept; they were not elected on the Tea Party platform, and the onus is not on them to willingly engage in one sided negotiations.
As I stated, there are very clear reasons why the democrats should make this decision along partisan lines, which I outlined in the first paragraph in the second section of my post; as a representative of the people, democrats in general have been told that they will not be allowed to move forward on the most basic of position filling, or duties of the government. When you are being told "no, you don't get a say in nominations, even if you are the ruling party," and don't get those nominations through when the mass majority in the past have for reasons other than the qualifications of those people, then there is nothing to lose in this case. The democrats were facing continued unilateral blockage from a unified Republican senate, which is why the democrats unified to demand they get a voice in the democracy they were voted in to serve.
Forum Addict 
CKA Moderator 
Whoever holds the senate gets these powers. I think stating in one breadth "this is a horrible idea" and in the next stating "we're totally going to double down if we get in" kind of exemplifies the issues within the Republican party. Anything for victory... as long as they can make democrats "each shit and die." 
It's hard to negotiate when the terms of one side is "no, no one gets a job at this regulatory body because we don't like it, but can't kill it via the democratic methods of the USA." The days of hashing out and fixing issues is something from yester-century... it's been a solid set of decades since we could say that was the norm, and it was only getting worse. The filibuster, hence, was less about getting attention and more about retaining control as a minority; a position that many experts has remarked is an extraordinary degree of power by any measure.
