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

FBaggins

(28,718 posts)

26. Don't be ridiculous

Reply to rzemanfl (Reply #24)

Sat Oct 24, 2020, 11:51 AM

Oct 2020

You can’t define “functioning two party system” or “functioning Congress” as “no matter what... the minority can block the majority if they think it’s important enough”

The majority used their power to achieve something they wanted... including the ability to change the rules if they felt the minority was abusing them (and specifically in the context of judicial appointments). The impact of those changes years ago (that many of us opposed) is what got us where we are today.

The rule in question exists to keep the majority from doing business when the minority isn’t even around to know that it’s happening. They can’t call a meeting in the middle of the night and not invite the minority. It was never something that could block action that the minority knew about and could have participated in.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate "rules" *cough cough [View all] luv2fly Oct 2020 OP

Obviously, the rules only apply to Democrats. FoxNewsSucks Oct 2020 #1

Precisely Sherman A1 Oct 2020 #6

The Senate loves their rules until they don't Buckeyeblue Oct 2020 #2

Thr Republican Party has become corrupt and lawless Captain Zero Oct 2020 #4

Not just crushed but exposed Buckeyeblue Oct 2020 #5

I doubt the rules were written to allow the opposing party to protest and stop nominations or Hoyt Oct 2020 #3

If the shoe were on the other foot they would stunt like Evil Knievel. n/t rzemanfl Oct 2020 #8

We wouldn't accept it either. Allowing boycotts to stop legislation was not intent of rules. Hoyt Oct 2020 #9

I didn't write the rule, you didn't write the rule. rzemanfl Oct 2020 #10

I know it wasn't written to allow the other party to stop legislation by merely not showing up. Hoyt Oct 2020 #11

It's a Judiciary Committee Rule. n/t rzemanfl Oct 2020 #12

Still wasn't written to allow other party to stop nominations by not showing up. Hoyt Oct 2020 #13

It may have been written back when there was a functioning two-party system. n/t rzemanfl Oct 2020 #14

The shoe has been on the other foot FBaggins Oct 2020 #22

Different times. We used to have a functioning Congress. n/t rzemanfl Oct 2020 #24

Don't be ridiculous FBaggins Oct 2020 #26

The pot was stirred and left on the stove. Watch for a PM. n/t rzemanfl Oct 2020 #27

"Stirred and left on the stove" FBaggins Oct 2020 #30

Maybe once we take the Senate they can use the rule breaking to invalidate the confirmation cags Oct 2020 #7

Why wishful Iwasthere Oct 2020 #16

Really? dware Oct 2020 #17

Where does it say they can push through the nomination without the required two Dems Iwasthere Oct 2020 #19

Again, I ask, dware Oct 2020 #20

There are no "required Dems" in the Constitution FBaggins Oct 2020 #21

Thank you for saying this. dware Oct 2020 #23

Could this be a justification for impeachment if a nominee is approved by an improper process? n/t rainin Oct 2020 #15

Ok, she's impeached by the House, now what? dware Oct 2020 #18

Is that a yes, if we gain control of the Senate? rainin Oct 2020 #28

It takes 67 Senators to vote to convict and remove her, dware Oct 2020 #29

It is not OK malaise Oct 2020 #25

But yet it happens luv2fly Oct 2020 #31