dipplayer, in most countries, you don't need any sort of legislative approval of cabinet members. The Treasury Secretary, Secretary of Defense (or their equivalents) in other countries are just selected by the head of government and that's that. Seems fine to me, since in the executive branch, those individuals just have to do whatever the (already elected) head of government tells them, anyway.

The reason its a problem now is the longstanding agreement between the parties was that filibustering nominations was reserved for unqualified candidates or in the case of an emergency. During the last debate on changing the rules the republicans were filibustering nominees to agencies they had problems with. While still inappropriate it was at least a specific type protest, and a compromise was reached. This time around though they republican claim was essentially that the President shouldn't be nominating anyone to these vacancies. This is clearly contrary to the President's authority under the constitution. The rules change was a good idea. It's important to remember that the Filibuster is a result of the senate's rules, with no specific basis in the constitution.

Yeah, the filibusters on the DC circuit were pretty ridiculous. The Republican position was that the vacancies should simply never be filled and the size of the court reduced (because an 8-member court makes perfect sense, right? No issues with breaking ties there...).

Yeah, well America us not most countries. Thank God

*is not*

You really it matters one bit whether or not the Senate confirms the Treasury Secretary (or a position like the Treasury Secretary)? It was already a matter of custom and convention for decades that the Senate would just confirm whoever the president nominated for those positions, anyway.

A filibuster is a fine tool to force compromise and more importantly, further discussion. It's outrageous though, how it is used to basically require a 60% majority to pass anything. This is not the spirit in which the law is supposed to work. In cases where fruitful discussion is "over," there should be measures in place to make sure that only the majority is needed.

My suggestion is diminishing requirements for cloture (didn't know that term, semck, thanks). Start at 60 if you want, but as days pass it should diminish back to 50%. It would be easy to implement this reform, just put it through with an enactment date of 2017, so the Republicans won't feel they are losing what leverage they currently have.

And yeah... America really does have a more effective executive branch than every country with a Westminster parliament in the world. Totally.

@YJ, since these are Senate rules (and not legislation) being changed in mid-session, I am pretty sure that they can only change rules for the current session of Congress (ie the 113th Congress).

Why is effectiveness in government a good thing? I don't want an efficient government. I want s limited and accountable one.

"This is a travesty. Now Obama can appoint whoever he wants with no consequences. To hell with Congressional oversight, right? We have a bona fide tyrant on our hands. "

there is Congressional oversight - what are you talking about? The Senate will still have oversight. The Constitution does not guarantee that the opposing party of the President gets to stop all his nominations. If over half the country has elected both the President and his party to Congress, apparently the will of the people will not be done without the minority getting in the way, right?


Now...if only we could apply that "minority gets no voice" thing and put the homo's back in the closet, things would be just dandy...

@Krellin...no...the Dems did not filibuster all the time. There is more than enough evidence to show you that the GOP has filibustered far more times in the 5 years Obama has been in office than in the 8 years that GWB was in office. They did use it...but nowhere near as much as the current GOP does...which is for just about anything Obama and/or the Dems try and do.

Aside from that factual error...I do agree that all of them should be tossed out of office. Wow...Krellin and I agree on something. Maybe the right and left can compromise??? Now...how do we teach that to the loons in congress???

Benga - and the Republicans don't fillibuster all the time either. sheesh...I didn't know that the rules were you were only allowed to use the filibuster and equal number of times as the opposition per calendar year.

but if you want to get down to real issue, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal, who saw nothing in common and were bitter political enemies, sat down and compromised. Likewise Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, finding themselves with divided government, acted the part of adults and compromised.

So there it is - opposing parties, with examples of each in each others' positional shoes, acting like adults and running the country for the benefit of all, instead of acting at all times to score political points, as both parties see their singular purpose to be.

Maybe if the our dear President would come down from his podium and, oh, I don't know...meet with Republicans, attempt to compromise...you know, act like an adult...then the Republicans wouldn't have to filibuster so often.

"Now...if only we could apply that "minority gets no voice" thing and put the homo's back in the closet, things would be just dandy..."

@ Krellin...I hope you are not serious about that...if you are then you and I are going to have some serious words...

Kremlin, that's pretty silly. The Republican caucus rejected a conference committee 18 times this year (18 rejections! Of the usual method of negotiating a compromise between the House and Senate!) so they could use the shutdown and debt ceiling to avoid making any compromise at all. It is not the Democrats that has refused to negotiate - they tried to 18 times this year formally to go to conference on the budget, and the GOP refused until they'd exhausted every avenue of obstruction they could use to avoid compromising.

Pretty funny, considering they kept on demanding the Senate pass a budget... As soon as it did, they lost all interest in negotiating.

He is making a point about the importance of protecting minority rights from majority rule

DP...he made a rather inflammatory remark...let him defend it if that is what he believes or make take it back if he did not. This is why I asked him to clarify if he really meant it before getting nasty...

@Benga -- I hope you are not serious about thinking that I am serious about that.

You don't see the irony in people celebrating the quashing of the right of the minority to express an opinion on one issue, while on other issues vilifying anyone who thinks the minority shouldn't have rights?

I thought the Liberals were *champions* of the little man, the champion of minority rights, etc. Well...the Republicans are in the minority - shouldn't the Liberals be doing everything they can to protect their right to have at least a voice in the Senate?

@Stackleberg...yes it's ridiculous blah blah blah...until it is *your* side doing the same thing, then you think it is all fine and dandy. If there was anything consistent about what you are saying, I wouldn't be laughing my <bad word...> off...

@Bengal - here is a hint -- a way to test if someone is correct in their thinking, you take their philosophy / actions and apply it to something that is near and dear to their heart.

Quashing (evil Republican) minority voice -- YAY!!!! Good thing, right!??!

Quashing (victim homosexual) minority voice -- YAY!!! Good thing, right!?!?!?

If you can't apply your actions/logic/philosophy across the board, you had better examine on whether you have a consistent, logical philosophy, or if you are just being a vindictive, politically-motivated piece of shit. (I'm *not* saying this is you...but they are among us...)

See, I knew what krellin was up to. A bit scary, that. ;-)

The Federal Reserve is the most corrupt organization since Hammurabi. Any reasonable person would do anything in their power to stop Yellen's nomination at all costs, at least until the Federal Reserve is audited.

krellin, no one was objecting that LGBT groups didn't have veto power over all legislation, judicial nominees, and executive branch nominees.

@krellin: I'm perfectly fine with Republican presidents nominating judges that only need a majority vote to be confirmed -- and that's the compromise that Democrats actually agreed to back in 2006 when this issue came up then and Republicans threatened to abolish the filibuster.

Thank you for clarifying Krellin. I had hoped that you were not bigoted like that.

And if the GOP was not breaking the deal they struck with the Dems at the beginning of this Congress we would not be here discussing this.

I support the filibuster but think is should be used sparingly and have a sunset provision on it. Personally...I would hope that the Senate GOP would back off and allow the nominations to proceed and then reinstate the filibuster. Instead the GOP is using it to block everything the Dems try and do. And this while they control the House...it is a near natural filibuster on it's own.

And yes...I would love to see compromise. But the GOP refuses. Obama put cuts to SS and Medicare on the table in return for tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations and they refused. The Dems put their sacred cows out for carving...but the GOP would not do the same.

"And yes...I would love to see compromise. But the GOP refuses. "

Bengal - please display a little honesty. During the last shut-down, not only did Obama not come to the table to compromise, but he went before his lapdog media's microphones and openly declared that he would not sit down to compromise.

Obama wouldn't know leadership if it crawled up his tight white ass and died. (Yes...he is mixed race, and I do believe we have identified his white part...)

The shutdown only happened because the Republicans refused to compromise on the budget via a conference committee (ie normal order) 18 times.

"Compromise" is a meaningless buzzword these days. One side *always* gets some sort of advantage and the American people always get fucked.

blah blah blah blah yes, Republicans are 100% to blame for all problems in Washington blah blah blah it would be Utopia without Republicans blah blah blah Democrats never play politics with the nation blah blah blah Republicans want to eat your babies blah blah blah

As usual, krellin descends into incomprehensible gibberish when confronted with facts :)

I like actual Republicans better than krellin. At least they don't deny that their objective is just to stop Obama from enacting any part of his agenda. Despite being elected president, Republicans are pushing the boundaries of their authority to prevent Obama from doing anything the president usually can do.