Sunday, November 24, 2013

Are you a Senate purist? Do you already miss the filibuster (on judicial and executive branch nominees)? Is this a positive or a historically sad change?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/

55 comments:

Brittany Yerges said...

I am on the fence about this topic. While it will probably allow the senate to be more productive, which is good considering our latest government shutdown, I think it is a historically sad change. Filibusters are a way to prevent bills that a party does not want to be passed. By restricting this, it does not allow a party to show how passionately they do not want a particular bill passed. There have been filibusters that have gone down in history that have shown how dedicated our senators our to protecting what they want. I think it is a shame they have restricted them.

Allie Krumrai said...

I think that by changing the rules of a filibuster can be a positive yet historically sad change. By weakening the power of the filibuster will help the amount of time it takes for the senate approval of judicial and executive nominees, due to reducing the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes. I think that this change will seem like it is positive at first because more than likely the senate will be more productive. Although they will be more productive I feel like this is a historically sad change because the filibuster was a way for each party, depending on what bill it was, show how much they are against it and why. Being that it would be easier to get a bill passed one of the parties will have barely any chance to stop the bill from getting passed if they are passionately against it. I think that yes it will be more productive in getting through bills faster, but I also feel that this could be bad because it is not giving both parties a chance. All in all, I feel that the only positive change would be the productiveness but I think that there are many more sad changes with the new rule of the filibuster.

Nicholas Staniszewski said...

This is a tough decision for me. I think this is a historically sad change mainly because this change can be abused by both sides in upcoming Congresses. I can understand that Senate Democrats want to be able to put someone on the Court of Appeals who has a more left leaning agenda compared to the status of the Court of Appeals now. But then again, changing the filibuster rules can lead to an impurity in the Senate. Let's say Democrats are now able to put someone into the Court of Appeals by ending the filibuster. Okay, not too much harm done. But then, let's also hypothetically think into the future Senate, where hypothetically there is now a Republican majority of 52 to 48, and there is suddenly a huge vacancy in the Courts of Appeals. Republicans can put in the most conservative nominee it wants now (with majority approval) and if the Democrats unanimously vote against the candidate, and filibuster, the Republicans can break the filibuster and the candidate gets in. I feel like changing the filibuster rules will lead to a long range of abuses in our Senate by the majority, regardless of the party. The filibuster was always a good way to protect the minority opinion of the United States because the minority might not always have been a small minority, but a close gap between the majority and minority. When a Senator filibustered, a party usually had to convince some of the the other party to end the filibuster, and that way, people would know that the Senate majority spoke for the majority of United States citizens.

Tom Schneider said...

For me, it is very hard to decide if this is good or bad. Historically it is sad, and we will not know if it is beneficial or not until it has been in affect for some time. This may speed up the time it takes to pass judicial and executive branch nominees, but it removes much of the respect from the dominant party to the minority parties. They made it easier to end a filibuster, removing the voice and power of the weaker political power. It can also be awful by letting the party in control make progress on their agenda by the lack of filibusters slowing down the process of the party with the most power. However, it is also good because it will speed up the process by making filibusters easier to break. Both parties will utilize this to put forward their agendas, which will give the majority power much more power. The majority is now determined by less people, causing more one-sided endings. As Nick Staniszewski said, the majority is no longer the majority of the United States.

Donald Carpenter said...

I think that this is a positive change currently. I also do not believe that this is a historically negative change, what is actually negative is how the senate came be so obstructionist that Harry Reid was forced to "go nuclear". When the senate becomes so dysfunctional that the minority party filibusters every nominee, not because of serious objection, but because of a desire to prevent any actions by the president, it would be more of a constitutional crisis to NOT stop the filibuster, as the senate minority is effectively taking away the enumerated powers of the president. Because of this historic, unprecedented level of obstruction by senate Republicans, it was necessary to use this "nuclear option", as Republicans themselves threatened to do when they were in power during the Bush years.

Justin Jezuit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Jezuit said...

This is a topic that really makes me think, but in the end I believe this is a historically sad change.Sure the filibuster can be broken much more easily and bills will be passed quicker, but now parties can't express how they feel about a topic in such detail. Also, the new changes take away from a very thorough debate. From now on, the way bills are argued over will be changed and our posterity will not know what a real filibuster is. This is sad to hear, and I will miss the endless amount of 24 hour filibusters we could have had in the future.

Bryce Anderson said...

In my opinion this is a change for the worse. This would limit debates and the counting body of the Senate would be obsolete in the near future. So If the Senate is representing the interests of the States then by passing this new filibuster, many things can go wrong.

Jake Aperi said...

I believe that in the end this will go down historically as a sad change. The new changes will allow bills to be passed faster and more ssteadily, but it will also restrict the passion that parties are allowed to share. Some parties won't be able to go into further detail now explaining why they want a certain bill as they should be allowed too. The only plus side in the decision would be increasing the speed of the process. Otherwise I believe it is more negative because both parties aren't receiving a great chance. The filibuster was always a way of protecting the minority and not making it all about the majority, now with the changes it is more about the majority. Giving them more power than before.

Dani Schneider said...

In my opinion I believe that this a historically sad change. Without the filibuster, parties are unable to show their intense passion for bills. I think taking long amounts of time on bills is important to make sure that all the facts are accounted for. That being said, filibusters allowed senators to take their time when making a decision on an important bill. Therefore, the end of the filibuster is a sad historical change.

Nick Berger said...

I believe this is a sad historical change. With the new change I think that it allows the Majority Party to abuse the system. I feel that the filibuster was often used by the minority to voice their opinion. At the same time, by changing it the Senate should have increased productivity, and I think that affects the public's view on the Senate.

Cheyenne Mackai said...

In my opinion, this change is going to be remembered in history as a sad change. By not being able to filibuster a bill, there is no way to show your stance on an issue, or to persuade the other members of the Senate. Sometimes by filibustering, one party is unable to show a point that may have been previously overlooked. Filibusters gave the Senate a chance to change their opinion, too. With this in mind, I would have to say that removing filibusters is a sad historical change.

ng said...

This is I think will be a historically sad change. Much abuse can happen because of this change. This would give them more time to pass bills. It would also prevent parties from showing their strong opposition to different bills passed. It now doesn't protect minorities as well as it used to.

Brandon Glandt said...

I believe that at some point this will go down as a sad change because this change can be overused by both sides in future congresses. Some parties wont be able to go into detail on why the want a bill passed and in my opinion they should be allowed to. In my opinion the only good this is it will speed up the process of passing a bill. I also think that changing this will lead to parties using it to their advantage. The fillbuster was a good way to protect minorities because a minority may not always have been small, but lessen a gap between majority and minority.

Brandon Glandt said...

I believe that at some point this will go down as a sad change because this change can be overused by both sides in future congresses. Some parties wont be able to go into detail on why the want a bill passed and in my opinion they should be allowed to. In my opinion the only good this is it will speed up the process of passing a bill. I also think that changing this will lead to parties using it to their advantage. The fillbuster was a good way to protect minorities because a minority may not always have been small, but lessen a gap between majority and minority.

Brandon Glandt said...

I believe that at some point this will go down as a sad change because this change can be overused by both sides in future congresses. Some parties wont be able to go into detail on why the want a bill passed and in my opinion they should be allowed to. In my opinion the only good this is it will speed up the process of passing a bill. I also think that changing this will lead to parties using it to their advantage. The fillbuster was a good way to protect minorities because a minority may not always have been small, but lessen a gap between majority and minority.

Kaitlyn L said...

Parties cannot show their side fully and their beliefs fully on bills without the filibuster. We won't know how much success this will create without leaving it in act for some time. Taking a great amount of time to assess bills is important to make sure all the important information is acquired for. I believe that it is a historically sad change.

Ian Hintz said...

I believe most of America will view this as a positive change. The common idea will be this change will make the Senate work faster and more efficiently.Because of the government shutdown and the slow paced compromises, citizens will be for this rule change. I am against the new rule and think it will lead to both parties taking advantage of the system. Now that the amount of votes needed to end a filibuster is only 51, the party that has majority of the senate can end the minority's filibuster without any agreement from the minority. This will cause decisions to be made faster, but they will be one sided in the Senate. No matter which party is in control of the Senate, this new power will be abused. Needing 60 votes to end a filibuster seems more fair even if it slows down the process.

Jack Bloomer said...

I can see the filibuster change as both positive and historically sad. I see it as a positive because it allows bills to be looked at faster, and for work to be done quicker. However, I also see it as a historically sad change because now counter-arguments to a bill can not be as powerful as they once were. Due to the changes of a filibuster, I feel that the change is both positive because it creates more efficiency, and negative because it takes arguments away from the debate.

abigail wallace said...

I think this is a historically sad change. Filibusters were there for a reason. They had a purpose, and they worked. I feel that without the filibusters parties will not be allowed to talk or prove why they don't want a bill. On the other hand, I could see that there could be a positive upside because laws may be passed faster. Except, nothing can truly sped the process up. So, I feel taking away filibusters is not something that will make such a great difference, besides leaving parties upset.

Jared Baldwin said...

I think this will overall be considered a positive change. First, bills can be looked at and voted on faster without the time being used during a filibuster. Also, less votes will be needed to end the filibuster which will also speed up the process.

Daniel Baumann said...

I will miss the filibuster because I think that they are an interesting way for different parties too show their true support for their side. They ensured that each decision was contested to the fullest. However I believe that now because the process moves much faster, the senate will be more productive. I think we should focus on this increased productivity, and for that reason I believe it's a positive change.

Ashley Olszewski said...

I think it's a historically sad change. Filibusters were a way to prevent bills from being passed that a party does not want. By removing them, it doesn't allow a party to express its opinions and argue why a bill should not be passed without interruption. It was a good way to add to history with the original rules of filibusters. However, it may speed things along as far as getting things done. Still, it leaves a lot of room for not hearing other opinions and making mistakes because of it.

Cameron Palmer said...

This could easily be taken either way. Personally I see it as a change for the better considering I feel the original concept of a filibuster is basically exploiting the fine print of the constitution. The recent developments dont even necessarily remove the filibuster entirely it just makes it much easier to end one.

Cameron Palmer said...

This could easily be taken either way. Personally I see it as a change for the better considering I feel the original concept of a filibuster is basically exploiting the fine print of the constitution. The recent developments dont even necessarily remove the filibuster entirely it just makes it much easier to end one.

Cameron Palmer said...

This could easily be taken either way. Personally I see it as a change for the better considering I feel the original concept of a filibuster is basically exploiting the fine print of the constitution. The recent developments dont even necessarily remove the filibuster entirely it just makes it much easier to end one.

Justin Myers said...

In my opinion, this decision is going to be for the worse. Filibusters were used to voice an opinion on something. Removing that privilege limits what decisions can be made and enforces more control on those decisions. The minorities that were oppose to the decisions have very little influence now.

Kelsee York said...

I think overall this is/will be a positive change because now the senate will work faster and more efficiently. However, it is a historically sad change because filibusters allow the different parties to show their true views and dedication. This will restrict their ability to display their passion on a subject, making filibusters a lost art.

Kelsee York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Ceccato said...

I believe that this is a historically sad change. It does allow the senate to speed up the process but it takes away the minority's opinion and doesn't allow them to go into much detail. The majority has much more power in passing a bill.

GEORGI LLANAS said...

I believe this is a very sly change. Democrats are attempting to seem like they're the party putting forth the effort to get things moving on the legislative front yet they have the same mindset and strategies as Republicans. Both parties have one goal: get their candidates elected an become the majority in the House and Senate. The way the primary and election system works is the candidate most to the left or right is the candidate who becomes re elected. While in office, this doesn't change. Each side will continue to make the most liberal or conservative decisions because they believe that is what their constituents want. This lessening of votes to get around a filibuster is an attempt at gaining more leverage over a minority, and I agree with the Republican senator from Kentucky in his warning to Democrats that if the power switches parties, it will come back to haunt them. A party is not going to give up power, especially if its written into law.

Jacob arndt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jacob arndt said...

I think this a positive step because now congress will be able to spend more time on more important things instead of wasting time on filibusters that may or may not solve anything. yeah, sometimes filibusters are needed but when members of the senate abuse their power to filibuster, something had to be done

Evan Warwick said...

I think that changing the rules of the filibuster is a unnecessary change. By changing the rules of a filibuster, a party can no longer advocate agianst a bill being passed. The filibuster has always been a good way to protect the minority opinion because the it closed the gap between the majority and minority. I believe that restricting filibusters is a sad change.

Kelsey Cybell said...

I am not really sure how I feel about this. While I think the idea behind filibusters was probably good, I don't really think that they have been that useful.

Michael Lafferty said...

Not quite sure if this is going to be bad or good. filibusters are used to stall bills that they dont want to be passed and now that is weakened. things will now moved faster in the senate but bill that I personally dislike will also move along faster. parties will now not be able to fully express how they feel about certain bills in the same amount of detail that they use to. overall this will most likely go down as a historically sad change.

Becca Penn said...

I'm leaning towards more of a sad change than positive. The filibuster does not help speed up Senate decisions so maybe it can sometimes be best not to have filibusters on judicial and executive branch nominees. However, filibusters can help demonstrate the opinions of the members of Senate on a bill.

Mike Vidmar said...

I'd say this is a sad change because it won't allow a party to deny a bill from being passed and showing how much they dislike it. It will speed up the process of passing a bill but bills now ill be more easily passed.

Tori Navarro said...

I believe changing the rules of a filibuster is unnecessary and a mistake. Filibusters always have lessened the gap between the majority and minority's because they are both protected by this process. Filibusters are intended to prevent a bill by the use of senators speeches. Eliminating filibusters will help speed up the process of passing a bill in the senate but bills that are disliked by the people will be passed. This change would be sad because this change can be abused by both parties.

Ben Ziolkowski said...

I do not think the removal of the filibuster is necessarily a good thing. The filibuster gave the minority group some opinion and a voice. If the senate, the house, and the president are all from the same party, then the minority group has no power in voicing their opinion. The filibuster allowed the minority group to have some influence on legislation. However, if the majority power has more than 60 votes, the filibuster would not matter.

Austin L said...

I think it is a sad thing NOT. I mean who wouldn't want to hear U.S. Sen Strom Thurmond's 24 hour and 18 minute filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act that eventually did PASS. He read form the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington's farewell address and other historical documents. This way things will get done quicker and with ease.

Ellie Tadych said...

I think that this could go either way as good or bad. Because this will shorten the time it takes for a bill to be passed, it could be considered as good. However, it could also be viewed as bad because it limits the influence of the elected senators, who are supposed to be influential.

Katie Wirch said...

I think that the decision to get rid of the filibuster is quite historically sad. Filibusters portray passion & determination by a particular party towards a law/decision. Some filibusters have lasted crazy amounts of time, just to show dedication, but others have lasted shorter amounts of time, in which some maybe previously overlooked points are brought up.

Kelli Kontney said...

I think that the losing the filibuster in the senate is a negative change that is also historically sad. Filibusters allow senators to represent their party's opinion on a certain bill or topic. If the opposing party cannot come up with enough signatures to end a filibuster with a cloture vote, then the bill is probably not widely supported anyway. All in all, I believe that ending the filibuster rule will be a huge negative for the senate.

Mitchell Kwapick said...

I think ending the filibuster on nominees is a positive change. I would not say I am a senate "purist" though. I think that if filibusters of any kind were destroyed then this would be very historically sad because it would change the way of government and make things that aren't for the best much easier to pass through the senate. I think having a filibuster on judicial and executive branch nominees is not a good thing because it hinders the overall process of government and being able to get things done and work cooperatively. I think now that it is gone, governmental elects will have a better chance at representing the people who supported them and getting their ideas through to make a change.

Amy Rothwell said...

I think this change will be a negative change at first but the opinions will eventually fade as people become accustomed to it. At that point it will be a positive change for American Government. This will make it easier for nominees to get into office. I think the change of the vote from 60 to 51 will not have any drastic impact but will change the fated outcomes of a few individuals every time they are selected. I think not changing the filibuster for judicial nominees is a good thing. Because supreme court justices serve life terms, I believe it should be more difficult for them to get into a position of power. There may be an uproar from some people now, but I believe that within a few years all will fizzle out and it will become a positive thing that helps the government work more constructively.

Keely Smith said...

In my opinion, changing the filibuster rules will be a good, but historically sad change. This is historically sad because this change could potentially be abused. Parties will not be able to express their view points in as great detail now. However, it will be a good change because it will speed up the process by making sure that filibusters easier to end; which will increase the productivity. All in all, there are some positives and some negatives with this change.

Jonathan Aiuppa said...

This change will prove to make faster decicisons in congress. That being said, faster isnt always better.The option of having a filibuster that requires a cloture vote of 60 is necesary when discussing major changes in legislature. It will be interesting to see if the senate does increase output at all. If the senate output changes, the law will have affected the country, whether for good or for worse it will have changed congress forever. The ability for a senator to stand and filibust before a bill was to be voted is definately key in congress.

abigail wallace said...

In my opinion, I believe that this is a historically sad change. The filibusters were so bills that parties that do not passed would have a higher chance of "talking it dead." On the other hand, I could see why some people would think this is great. This could be great because it allows for a faster time frame that bills could be passed. Again, if a party truly feels a bill is a bad idea they at least have the opportunity to make sure it does not follow through. In the end, I think that this is a sad change.

ben dewinter said...

Yes I think that fillabusters are perfectly fine and have been a way of delaying or stopping a bill since the beginning of our Government. I think that this a historically sad change because now senate members have no way of representing the flaws in new bills, and how much they oppose the bill. However without fillibusters the process of passing a bill into law will become faster.

Allison Menako said...

I believe that this will be a historically sad change. Yes it will speed up the process, but it eliminates the parties to show how they feel about the bills. With a filibuster I feel like they would have a significant chance to stop a bill from passing, but with the nuclear option it doesn't seem so. With filibuster's it gives people the time to think about if something is really right or wrong but with this, they might make a decision too fast.

Nicholas Staniszewski said...

I'm going to have to disagree with Donald Carpenter here, and although he has some excellent points, I think the filibuster of nominees was a good thing. Yes, the abuse of it was a negative, but the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. The filibuster would be useful in case the majority party tries to pack the court. Although the abuse leads to ineffectiveness, the filibuster prevents more long term ineffectiveness, as a opposite party Supreme Court could tie up the Congress for a single term, or more. Congress is a lot like Cerberus. Three heads, maybe looking different directions, but on one path, with one common goal: protecting and improving the lives of the American citizens.With losing the filibuster, the long term effect could have two of the heads going straight ahead and the other one holding them back.

Jacob arndt said...

@dani although you think this may be a sad change, the point of any governmental choice should be based on how it will affect the people of the United States. after all is said and done, our congress needs to come together and decide if the filibuster, in its entirety, is good or bad for our nation and make changes to it as necessary.

Donald Carpenter said...

I have to disagree with Nick Staniszewski's post. I think that the current filibuster system for judicial nominees was exceeding the constitutional authority of the Senate. In article 2 of the constitution, the President is given the power to nominate justices with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The Senate Republicans, with a vow to derail any of the President's nominees, filibustered every court nominee, even though they did not have any issues with many of them. This exceeded the "advice and consent" that was enumerated in the Constitution, because they were taking away the powers of the executive branch. If the filibuster hadn't ended, this would have continued with every political party holding office, and the courts would eventually be very low in numbers. In today's partisan environment, this action was needed to preserve the vision of the Senate that our founding fathers had.

Brittany Yerges said...

Here is an article outlining some of the advantages and disadvantages of the filibuster reform.

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/11/26/benefits-filibuster-reform