Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: "Why aren't the Democrats landsliding today's Republicans?" [View all]ellisonz
(27,776 posts)66. It wasn't a question of caving or not caving.
It was a matter or preserving the institutional integrity of the Senate in accordance with the principle of checks and balances. It also wasn't SCOTUS nominees.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) reached out to a number of colleagues on both sides to compromise by winning confirmation of some of the disputed nominees (Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen) while preserving the judicial filibuster on William Myers and Henry Saad.[56] Their efforts succeeded on the evening of May 23, 2005, one day before the cloture vote. They announced an agreement by seven Republican and seven Democratic Senators to avert a vote on the nuclear option while preserving the filibuster for "extraordinary circumstances."[57] The block of senators who agreed to the compromise included Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; and Democrats Nelson, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ken Salazar of Colorado. This group was quickly dubbed "the Gang of 14" in various blogs and news outlets. McCain, Chafee, Collins, and Snowe were already on record as opposing the nuclear option, leaving the Democrats two votes short of defeating an attempt to trigger it (they would have needed 51 votes to override Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote).
The bipartisan group was large enough to deny Frist the 50 votes he needed to trigger the nuclear option, and also large enough to reach cloture on a Democratic filibuster. It states, in part:
...we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
Democrats in the Gang agreed not to filibuster the judges listed in the agreement (save in "extraordinary" circumstances) and Republicans in the Gang agreed not to vote for the nuclear option. The definition of what constituted an "extraordinary" circumstance was left up to the individual senator. For example, Graham and DeWine let it be known that they did not consider nominations to the Supreme Court to fit the definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Gang_of_14
The bipartisan group was large enough to deny Frist the 50 votes he needed to trigger the nuclear option, and also large enough to reach cloture on a Democratic filibuster. It states, in part:
...we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
Democrats in the Gang agreed not to filibuster the judges listed in the agreement (save in "extraordinary" circumstances) and Republicans in the Gang agreed not to vote for the nuclear option. The definition of what constituted an "extraordinary" circumstance was left up to the individual senator. For example, Graham and DeWine let it be known that they did not consider nominations to the Supreme Court to fit the definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Gang_of_14
They compromised, which is the foundation of our government, and to destroy the Filibuster would result in the tyranny of a simple majority over a minority.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
128 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Ralph Nader: "Why aren't the Democrats landsliding today's Republicans?" [View all]
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
OP
Because assholes like Nader keep promoting the RW meme that both parties are the same.
baldguy
Jan 2012
#1
I didn't know that right-wing Republicans (RW) are promoting the idea that they are like Democrats
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#4
That's how the GOP has maintained power even though they've been the minority party for 40 yrs.
baldguy
Jan 2012
#18
Ralph is a jerkbag coward. Afraid to confront the GOP party. A yellow belly. n/t
deacon
Jan 2012
#20
How long do you think we'll have to wait for an intelligent rebuttal of Nader's article?
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#11
That makes it pretty easy then, call someone an asshole and avoid the content of
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#69
So you simply don't do content. Why not say so instead of hiding behind assholes?
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#109
If you read his comments on the Republicans in the article you would know the answer!
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#33
The heart of the EFCA was card check and it has not been implemented by the White House.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#42
"He's the best President in decades for unions"? Did he make an effort to turn back NAFTA?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#101
The fake Republican "procedural filibusters" could have been stopped by the Democrats.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#51
By not changing Senate rules, Democrats left Republicans in possession of the weapon they've used
smokey nj
Jan 2012
#91
Because most people have no idea WTF is going on in politics and will blame the President for everyt
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#27
I do remember that debate in 2005. Democratic Senators caved in to Republicans.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#57
Fake filibusters need to be destroyed. Senators should be required to filibuster in a filibuster!
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#94
Do you believe that agreement did not apply to Bush's Supreme Court nominees?
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#119
Because the far left would rather attack the center left than deal with reality
Motown_Johnny
Jan 2012
#59
The *authoritarian* left would rather attack the moderate left than deal with reality.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#62
It takes 51 votes to change the Senate rules. Nader is right, and Harry Reid has no guts.
cherokeeprogressive
Jan 2012
#77
They have no desire to. They want to be as close to being the Republicans as possible and still have
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#86
So, the "Democrats [are not] landsliding today's Republicans" because some posters hate Nader?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#104
"...they failed to curtail the filibuster..." WOW! Ignorant on many fronts! Obama is NOT congress or
uponit7771
Jan 2012
#124
It's amazing that Ralph doesn't see the irony. Why didn't he landslide them?
Tarheel_Dem
Jan 2012
#125