Read this article. What did the Senate do regarding presidential appointments? Why? Why could this come back to haunt the Democrats? Do you think it the right thing to do? For extra effort read this article (this article was written before the recent change). How have filibusters changed? What is a reasonable solution?
21 Comments
Miguel Garcia
12/2/2013 09:02:49 am
The senate voted on halting the "venerable filibusters" on presidential appointees. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, accused Republicans of "unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction", when dealing with Obama's selections to fill court vacancies and other offices. This could haunt the democrats because if in the next presidential election a Republican were to win presidency, the tables would turn and the Republicans would have the amount of power the senate has now. I believe it is the right thing to do, given that the democrats have won the election, they should have more power. I believe that the filibusters just waste time, and are very unnecessary.
Reply
Jen Galasso
12/2/2013 11:49:09 pm
The 52-48 vote in the Senate curbed filibusters for presidential appointees because of the delay it was causing. A filibuster can be defined as an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures. Filibustering has become an extreme issue over the last several years. This decision was led by Senate Majority Leader Henry Reed because he felt that Republicans in the Senate were going to extensive lengths in order to delay admitting presidential appointees and going to any length to postpone the Affordable Healthcare Act. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell brings up a valid argument against Reed’s decision. If, in the future, the Republicans gain control of the White House, the Democrats will have to receive the same treatment that they are currently giving. The two parties will continue to disagree, but blocking each others’ ideas with filibusters will only create a deeper wedge. I think this decision was the correct thing to do, though it will cause some conflict, because filibustering is a waste of valuable time and it should not be allowed in the legislative branch. In the last few years filibusters have become increasingly excessive and it has become much easier for Senators to block highly controversial issues. Now senators only have to signal their intent to filibuster in order to cause a distraction from the issue. The use of the filibuster is currently being abused and there needs to be more strict regulations on delaying solvable issues in the Senate. In the time that is spent on filibusters, the Senate could be creating compromises and benefiting the citizens.
Reply
Zoe Alfaro
12/4/2013 01:01:35 am
The democrates voted 52-48 in favor to stop filibusters for current and future nominees. Republicans have been using "delaying tactics" to put off confirming and appointing officials especially to the federal courts. This could come back to haunt the Democrates because whenever they would want to "delay" an issue they would not be able to. I think keeping the fillibuster would be ok so when either party would need to use it they have it and when they don't just ignore it.
Reply
Maria Corona
12/4/2013 07:18:31 am
The 52-48 votes done by the Democrat's in favor of stopping the filibusters for the nominees which have been causing a lot of commotion in the past several years. And though some Democrat's are being unfair with treating the Republicans some say that if the Republicans were to take control other the White House the Democrat's would receive the same treatment back without having a good excuse on denying why it is that they are getting treated in such a way. And even though both parties dislike each others ideas they should just come up with a final solution because blocking each other with filibusters isn't going to get them anywhere for the time being. Now senators only have to signal their intent to filibuster in order to cause a distraction from the issue making it way easier for things to go on instead of stopping the problems half way through the way and then having the problem sit there until it is brought up again. The use of the filibuster is currently being abused it needs to be strict on more regulations on delaying solvable issues in the Senate and should find a solution in order to get things done in a faster manner. In the time that is spent on filibusters, the Senate could be creating compromises and benefiting the citizens in other ways such as coming up with new health plans and such instead of fighting over a stupid problem due to a filibuster that's in the way. Either way the filibusters are good in some points but they need to stop over using them for every single problem or issue that comes towards their way.
Reply
Sandra Arroyo
12/4/2013 09:34:11 am
Reply
André de Awesome
12/4/2013 10:34:41 am
The recent 52-48 vote in Senate curbed the ability to filibuster presidential appointees and other key topics. It was implemented on November 21st in order to quell the sudden rise in filibustering seen in the past year, namely due to Obama’s new Healthcare act. A filibuster can be defined as an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly. Filibustering was thought to have first been developed in ancient Rome by senator Cato the Younger in order to obstruct debates he opposed. Filibustering has become issue over the last several years causing many unneeded standstills in congressional hearings. The decision to amend this issue was led by Senate Majority Leader Henry Reed. He felt that Republican senators, the current Congressional minority, were going to extensive lengths in order to delay admitting presidential appointees and delay bills having to do with Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell brings up a valid argument against Reed’s decision. If, in the future, the Republicans gain control of the White House, the Democrats will have to receive the same treatment that they are currently giving, so the pendulum swings both ways. The use of filibustering tactics is extremely detrimental to Congresses ability to move forward with the passing of laws and appointment of government officials. I think this decision to directly address this issue by vote is an admirable one, though it will cause some conflict, in the long run it will cause the legislative branch to run much more smoothly. The use of filibustering tactics has increasing become a governmental crutch as of late, it is important to rid us of this passive aggressive technique in order to heal the growing divide between political parties.
Reply
Delaney Creswell
12/4/2013 11:02:23 am
In regards to the Senates decision on presidential appointees, they passed 52-48, that filibusters should be eliminated from this process, as it causes too many delays in working from opposing political party members. In particular the Republicans have been a major instigator of these obnoxious filibusters, harming the process of work completed for the government because they disagree with the Democratic decisions completed by the president. However, the two parties disagree more than they generally agree, and if and when the Republicans become the controlling party again they would most likely be treated by the Democrats as the Republicans treated them. The elimination of the filibusters and the requirement of 60 votes was a very beneficial decision for preventing future delays in decisions. Though the parties shall always disagree, now there will be more of an incentive to either agree or come up with compromises that the Republicans refuse to do. Therefore, I believe the only reason that this would come back to haunt the Democrats is if the Republican party becomes a future Presidential party and they desire to introduce appointees or enforce acts that the Democrats highly disagree with. But I also believe that due to the treatment the Democrats have endured from the Republicans they will find a way to negotiate and be less of a nuisance unlike the Republicans. Filibusters have now been restricted to certain levels, and compromises will make things go a little smoother when it comes to making decisions. Hopefully the Republicans and Democrats can take into consideration that what is best for the country is better than arguing with each other.
Reply
Miguel Alfaro
12/4/2013 12:04:32 pm
The Democrats in the Senate passed a vote 52-48 to end filibusters on all presidential appointments. All Republicans voted against this as well as three Democrats. Due to a recent rise in the number of filibusters from the Republicans the Democrats decided to take action against them. The Republicans were delaying the conformation of appointees by filibusters and were making it more difficult for the Democrats to get things done. This may turn against the Democrats when a Republican becomes president because then they will be able to get what they want done and the Democrats will no longer be able to filibuster them. I think it was the right thing to do because the Republican where starting to take advantage of filibusters and it was making it more and more difficult for the government to get things done, so now that they cannot filibuster anymore it should be easier for things to be accomplished.
Reply
12/4/2013 02:22:51 pm
The senate passed a vote of 52-48 to repress filibusters on presidential appointees because it is just longing the time where the appointments aren't filled. It's the presidents job to appoint such positions so Republicans shouldn't try to intervene with that. I think filibusters should remain because if they are a way to give another opinion than it can always be used. If filibusters are removed then it will come back for Democrats when they are in the Republicans position and then it will be democrats who won't have anything to do about it. When a republican is president and democrats can't influence things they don't approve the tables will have turned but they wont be able to do anything about it.A reasonable solution is for things to remain the way they have been with filibusters.
Reply
Brian Gonzalez
12/4/2013 02:25:39 pm
In a vote regarding presidential appointees, there was a 52 - 48 vote that passed. It decided that filibusters should be eliminated as they only delay and prolong issues that need settling between two parties. Many republicans have felt compelled to strategically use filibusters against the democratic presidential choices. Generally it is common for the two parties to bud heads and disagree. If the roles were to ever be reversed, the democrats should fear their opponents because they could experience a taste of their own medicine. The republicans if they ever get power back would treat the democrats just as they treated them. The decision to get rid of filibusters was ultimately a smart one. Now issues will be resolved quicker and although the two parties will always disagree, they will no longer have to waste each other's time. Today filibusters have restrictions to a certain extent and will make help make compromises quicker and smoother. The new rules will help the two parties stop arguing and focus more on their country, which is the ultimate goal for both sides.
Reply
Alondra Diaz de Leon
12/4/2013 02:33:58 pm
The majority of the Senate voted to end the use of delaying tactics on all presidential appointments. Since the democrats in the senate are currently the majority, they voted this way to support the democratic president when he appoints someone because they are both democrats. Instead of having to listen to the republicans say reasons why the president shouldn't get his appointment approved even though the president would probably get his way in the end. However, it could affect the Democrats when the tables turn and the president becomes republican and they can no longer filibuster them or use delaying tactics when he appoints someone. I don't think its the right thing to do because they can be patient and sit through the filibusters and listen to it so that when it switches around it's the republicans that are going to have to listen.
Reply
Jackson Graff
12/4/2013 02:45:27 pm
Over the past year or so this nation has seen many issues come up in the government that has truly made a dent on how things get done and when they get done in the government. A few weeks ago the Senate met and passed a 52-48 vote on the ability to filibuster. The vote to put an end to filibusters ended up passing with all of the Republicans voting against it along with three Democrats. Because of this, there can no longer be long periods of time where people just wasted time to try and get their way. Republicans can no longer sit around and wait for Democrats to change their mind for every Presidential appointment that is made. Because of the strong Democrat influence the Republicans were not to happy to see this happen, this will not turn out in the Democrats favor when it comes time for a Republican President. Now when a decision is made there is no way of getting out of it even if there is a majority of one party voting on it. The Republicans or in that manner any party could easily find a way to abuse this and in that case yes it can very easily come back to haunt the Democrats. In the situation we are in now where nothing is getting done and the Republicans are being very rational by Filibustering every appointment Obama seems to make I fell that this was a good decision made by the senate. In the future I feel that this ruling will end up coming back to hurt the Democrats and will be used as a payback method which is not what we are looking for in our Government.
Reply
Julia Eyer
12/5/2013 12:54:37 pm
The last few months in Washington have been rough to say the least. First the government shutdown incited by the GOP, and just a few weeks ago, a new law passed by the senate 52-48, to limit the use of filibusters. Of course this was brought about most specifically because of the use of a filibuster because of the proposed change in debt celing just a few weeks ago. I believe that the use of a filibuster should continue to be used. The United States is based on democracy and the freedom of speech. I think a filibuster, although it does prove to be a waste of time in cases that a majority of the senate already stands a certain way, adds to the democratic policies of this nation. The republicans make a valid argument when Senator Mitch McConnell tells democrats that they will be in the same position as the republicans are in now, once the GOP takes over office again. However, I personally believe that it will be a very long time before the republicans regain the house. Their party is too divided and there are not any candidates strong enough to win a presidential election. They also don't have as many votes from the young people because of their conservative policies for social issues. If the GOP does take back the house, the democrats will have a very difficult time passing any mandates or laws for their party, but because of the current social and political state of the country, that the democrats will not
Reply
Kyle De Awesomest
12/5/2013 12:24:21 pm
The Senate Democrats voted as a whole to undermine Republicans ability to filibuster final votes, such as appointments for becoming a Supreme Court Justice. In a 52-48 vote the rules for filibusters on presidential appointments were ultimately changed, which solved the decade long argument of delays in confirming appointees, specifically in the federal court. The essential problem with changing the filibuster rules is that it can come back to bite the Democrats in the butt once the Senate changes party, leaving the Republicans in control to do as they please once their time comes. Ultimately I am unsure if it was the right thing to do, mainly because it gives a great deal of power to the party in control, which could be considered dangerous by many, and yet at the same time restricting the filibuster, a tactic that for the most part shouldn't be even allowed in the first place. What the new change the Democrats put forth causes filibusters to essentially be put down and added in a rule that requires a simply majority to assure a yes or no vote on presidential nominees,rather than the 60-vote majority that was previously in place.
Reply
Cori Calabi
12/5/2013 01:51:13 pm
The Senate (specifically the Senate Democrats) lowered the requirement for stopping a filibuster against presidential appointees, from a 60-vote majority to a simple majority.
Reply
Katie Begerow
12/5/2013 03:49:23 pm
Recently, the government has experienced issues with the Senate rejecting perfectly respectable, and job-worthy nominees for cabinet members that were appointed by Obama. The republican Senate use of filibusters brought scrutiny upon their intentions. In reaction to the issue, the Senate(which is a democratic majority, voted on the use of filibusters. With all but three democrats supporting the change and all the republicans opposing it, the Senate voted 52-48 on eliminating the ability to filibuster presidential nominees; they claimed delays have been to prevalent in presidential nominees for the last decade. In addition, the Senate has previously been required to have a 60-vote majority on confirming or denying the nominees. Now they simply need a majority vote. These legislation changes were meant to make the road to decisions easier. However, as Obama is a democrat, all of his nominees are also democrats that share his views, therefore increasing the power of the Democratic party. This change could come back to haunt the democrats; if political power shifts to the republicans, then they will be able to quickly and vastly expand their power in the court system, making it difficult to pass laws that favor democratic viewpoints. Although it may temporarily satiate the issue, I do not believe it was the right decision, rather the democrats took advantage of their current power. The influence of filibusters and the required 60 vote majority helps maintain the balance between the political parties. This balance is essential to maintain proper representation of the people in the government.
Reply
Litto Damonte
12/5/2013 03:52:24 pm
The Senate recently passed a vote that limited the ability to filibuster presidential nominee approvals. With this limitation it will be easier for the president to put democrats in seats of power, but thy must be careful when a republican is in the white house, as it will make it easier for them to do the same. This obviously will come back to bite them, but for now it is a step in the right direction for politics. I think this will get us closer and closer to the intended version of the filibuster like Mr. Smith's. This small step is progress towards more decent politics.
Reply
Ryan Marcum
12/6/2013 03:44:49 am
With President Obama appointing cabinet members of his own selection, the Democratic Senate took action to accuse Republican Senate members of filibustering his choices too often. Democratic Senate members felt Republican Senators have been abusing this power members have to veto President appointed members specifically targeting appointees of the Democrat party. Depending on future appointed officials in the Senate, ones of Republican political affiliation are bound to increase in numbers over the Senate Democrats, which will eventually create the same problem as they faced with over filibuster use. I believe this was the correct action for the Democrats to take in order to stop the halt in progress of Republicans filibustering too often. But this is only a short term fix to an ongoing problem that is on either side of political affiliation. In order for Senate members to disallow a new member to be elected, they must filibuster, so it seems to create a wall in which members may veto members unaffiliated with their party or ideals, or utilize a filibuster to not allow someone they feel truly would not benefit the United States. Democracy is not a perfect system, and with this example it shows there will always be flaws and negative aspects of allowing people to voice their opinions, whether it be right or wrong, is not always apparent.
Reply
Pepe gallegos
12/9/2013 02:34:14 am
in the senate democrats passed a 52-48 vote to end filibusters in the presidential appointments. Republicans abused the use of "delaying tactics" to put off confirming and appointing officials especially to the federal courts. in the future, if Republicans gain control of the White House, the Democrats will have to receive the same treatment that they are currently receiving. the Senate could be creating compromises and benefiting the citizens in other ways instead of fighting over filibusters.
Reply
Dayanna Carlos
12/9/2013 11:02:55 am
What the senate did is that they passed a vote of 52-48 to undercut venerable filibuster rules on presidential appointees, meaning to end filibusters on all presidential appointments. The senate (democrats) did this so that they could stop the republicans from filibustering the presidents appointments from being confirmed. This could affect the democrats later on in the way that if a republican ever does make it into the white house, they will do the same as the democrats are trying to do now. In my opinion it is the right thing to do because it is important to make progressive changes not only for just one political party but for both and strive to make this country a better place, that is the ultimate goal in my opinion.
Reply
Grayson Broyles
12/12/2013 11:51:31 am
The Senate just passed a vote from the democrats that voted 52-48 in favor to dispose the filibuster presidential nominee. The republicans have put off appointing officials. This could come back and kick the Democrats in the butt because whenever they would like to pose pone something they will not be able to. For now it's a step by step process that is heading in the right direction for politics. I personally think that its the right thing to do because the democrats wont have it come back and haunt them.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |