Democrats Launch Nukes

[Symmetry]

some of them. not all. it's never "all". "all" is for the intellectually lazy

While I'm not sure I ever said "all" in the posts you're referring to, can you point out the "some" that you think he wasn't putting out his ideas in?

[Metsfanmax]

I thought about it this morning, and there's a simple way to tell whether Republicans are objecting on the basis of party or country. If they reinstate this filibuster when they have the Senate majority, we'll know they really think it's a good thing for the country. If they don't, we'll know they were just trying to play politics.

[patrickaa317]

I thought about it this morning, and there's a simple way to tell whether Republicans are objecting on the basis of party or country. If they reinstate this filibuster when they have the Senate majority, we'll know they really think it's a good thing for the country. If they don't, we'll know they were just trying to play politics.

If they don't reinstate, maybe they would simply be willing to try it for 226 years which is how long the last system was in place before it was changed.

I didn't read all the other posts but I think the dems changing this is just a way to get around some checks and balances that were put in place to ensure a proper balance. I'd usually say for better or for worse in a situation like that but I can't see when you wouldn't want some extra checks and balances just to ensure some sort of balance when either party has the executive branch and one of the legislative portions.

[mrswdk]

Probably because having too many checks and balances produces a system where politicians just block everyone they don't like from doing anything they don't want, and vice versa.

e.g. American government shutdown

[patrickaa317]

Probably because having too many checks and balances produces a system where politicians just block everyone they don't like from doing anything they don't want, and vice versa.

e.g. American government shutdown

So it's better to just allow the party in control to do everything they want?

[mrswdk]

If a democratically elected senate/congress votes to pass something then why should minority interests be allowed to scuttle it anyway?

The only check and balance you need is an independent judicial system. Anything else just aids people who are pissed at not getting their own way.

[patrickaa317]

If a democratically elected senate/congress votes to pass something then why should minority interests be allowed to scuttle it anyway?

The only check and balance you need is an independent judicial system. Anything else just aids people who are pissed at not getting their own way.

Sad part is when the executive branch is the one that appoints the judicial system, it cannot be considered an independent entity. This is the main reason the legislative branch had to approve nominees with a super majority prior to the so-called 'nuclear deal'.

[Metsfanmax]

Probably because having too many checks and balances produces a system where politicians just block everyone they don't like from doing anything they don't want, and vice versa.

e.g. American government shutdown

So it's better to just allow the party in control to do everything they want?

It probably is better to allow the President to select his own employees, barring something crazy that even his own party cannot get behind.

If a democratically elected senate/congress votes to pass something then why should minority interests be allowed to scuttle it anyway?

The only check and balance you need is an independent judicial system. Anything else just aids people who are pissed at not getting their own way.

Sad part is when the executive branch is the one that appoints the judicial system, it cannot be considered an independent entity. This is the main reason the legislative branch had to approve nominees with a super majority prior to the so-called 'nuclear deal'.

This is still the case. The filibuster rules change did not affect judicial nominees.

[patrickaa317]

Sad part is when the executive branch is the one that appoints the judicial system, it cannot be considered an independent entity. This is the main reason the legislative branch had to approve nominees with a super majority prior to the so-called 'nuclear deal'.

This is still the case. The filibuster rules change did not affect judicial nominees.

Wrong. The following statement would be correct: This did not change the filibuster rules on SCOTUS nominees.

To clarify:
The nuclear option did change filibuster rules on judge appointments for the US Appeals court (circuit courts). Not to mention other courts such as: Tax court, DC Court of Appeals, Superior DC Court, Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, US District Court, Appeals for Veteran Claims.

Note the US Appeals court judges are lifetime positions for one of the most influential courts. There are 179 in total and about 30 (or 17%) are appointed in a presidential term.

[Metsfanmax]

Sad part is when the executive branch is the one that appoints the judicial system, it cannot be considered an independent entity. This is the main reason the legislative branch had to approve nominees with a super majority prior to the so-called 'nuclear deal'.

This is still the case. The filibuster rules change did not affect judicial nominees.

Wrong. The following statement would be correct: This did not change the filibuster rules on SCOTUS nominees.

To clarify:
The nuclear option did change filibuster rules on judge appointments for the US Appeals court (circuit courts). Not to mention other courts such as: Tax court, DC Court of Appeals, Superior DC Court, Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, US District Court, Appeals for Veteran Claims.

Note the US Appeals court judges are lifetime positions for one of the most influential courts. There are 179 in total and about 30 (or 17%) are appointed in a presidential term.

Your original reasoning was wrong on multiple levels. First, if 17% of the appeals court judges are appointed in a presidential term, that means that 83% are not -- and therefore independent of the current administration. Second, the existence of the supermajority requirement doesn't change the fundamental equation -- the Senate is required to approve both executive and judicial nominees. It's just a different requirement for the Senate now. Third, your description is temporally dependent -- if Republicans had the majority right now, would you be claiming that the Senate has no oversight on nominees? Fourth, it was historically almost never the case that a super-majority was required to approve lower-level court judges, because the filibuster was almost never used on these appointments. So that can't have been the logic.

Additionally, the whole point of having lifetime appointments is to ensure judicial independence.

[Phatscotty]

I thought about it this morning, and there's a simple way to tell whether Republicans are objecting on the basis of party or country. If they reinstate this filibuster when they have the Senate majority, we'll know they really think it's a good thing for the country. If they don't, we'll know they were just trying to play politics.

If they don't reinstate, maybe they would simply be willing to try it for 226 years which is how long the last system was in place before it was changed.

I didn't read all the other posts but I think the dems changing this is just a way to get around some checks and balances that were put in place to ensure a proper balance. I'd usually say for better or for worse in a situation like that but I can't see when you wouldn't want some extra checks and balances just to ensure some sort of balance when either party has the executive branch and one of the legislative portions.

What Democrats did here is pretend there was never an election in 2010 and pretend they still have a supermajority.

It's a way to destroy Democracy and our Republic. Democrats could have gotten their way with this IF they had a supermajority. But Americans voted decisively in 2010 (the most decisive since 1938) and America decided to RIP Congress away from the Democrats and from Obama. Power divided is power checked. The American people acted as the check and balance. These people who support the Democrats, they are totally ignoring election results. It's tyranny straight up.

[Phatscotty]

I thought about it this morning, and there's a simple way to tell whether Republicans are objecting on the basis of party or country. If they reinstate this filibuster when they have the Senate majority, we'll know they really think it's a good thing for the country. If they don't, we'll know they were just trying to play politics.

I'm sure you do expect Republicans to just sit and get nuked and not do anything about it. This is classic good guy versus bad guy. The bad guy lies and cheats, and he knows the good guy will tell the truth and play by the rules, and the bad guy uses that knowledge against the good guy. Guess which one you are?

that's like saying "as soon as we Democrats are done nuking you, we'll see if you nuke us back. You better not, cuz you were saying using nukes was bad all along! Even after we nuked you, Republicans said they wouldn't do it before we used our nukes, so we expect Republicans to keep their word, even after we just finished nuking them"

War was declared by Democrats, and this is exactly what one would expect to see looking back as to what was the cause of America' second civil war. You can't just scrap Democracy and change the rules of our Republic and our Constitution and ignore election results and pretend like you have a supermajority.

There's gonna be hell to pay. No way are they going to get away with it. So ya see, really, it would have just been a lot easier for Obama to just do his job and make some court picks that can pass under the rules we have and always have had, instead of changing the 226 year old rules so the Progressives can have their way and shove their twisted reverse racism social justice progress down the entire countries throat. This is all about the DC court, the second most powerful in the country behind the Supreme Court. Progressives are 18% of the country, but their gonna have 100% of the seats on the DC court. That's how they are gonna be rolling from now on.

It's becoming more clear every single day why it was so important to vote against Obama and Democrats. The good Democrats have not been able to stand up to the Progressives, the same way Establishment Republicans have not been able to stand up to Democrats period. Now, after the election, we are seeing the real Obama, the Obama who does not need to worry about re-election. If you think it's bad now, just wait. Progressives are only getting started. The Second Amendment will be attacked like never before. the fourth amendment will be a thing of the past. The first amendment will be severely restricted. the IRS is going to destroy as many Conservatives and Conservative groups as they can, the NSA is gonna use as much information as they can to get whatever the government heart desires for whatever whimsical reason, whether it's legal or not, and if it's not, hey, just change the rules again. Obamacare is here to stay, even if it is delayed until after the next election AGAIN. wait until that starts taking a major chunk out of the economy (i dont see how people are gonna have any money left to spend on anything). I'll go out on a limb and predict we will average 5$ gallon gas in the next 24 months. I predict the growth our economy was supposed to experience in 2009-2010 still will not have surfaced in 2015-16, and we'll probably borrow/print another trillion in the name of boosting the economy (but will just be another slush fund again). All our historic allies will be extremely pissed with us, and all our enemies will continue taking advantage of us, Iran will get the bomb right under Obama's nose, Israel will be attacked around election time 2016, Russia will probably do some more invading again just like they did when Obama came into office (Putins prediction that Obama would be weak and Putin can do as he pleases was spot on) so look for even bolder actions from Russia. Obama's foreign policy blunders will prove to be even worse than his domestic blunders. All the QE is going to smack the entire world right across their face with hyperinflation (might get our allies invaded eventually), al qada will get a shitload more weapons from us, the Caliphate will rise and continue to expand, Kathleen Sybylius will never be held accountable but Eric Holder may actually be impeached, the head of the IRS will be promoted a few more times, more and more Socialists and Communists will continue to be elected in the big cities like in Seattle and New York.

The Democrat party has been hijacked and is being remolded more and more radical everyday. I can only hope that some in the Democrat party begin to reform themselves (and the voters too), especially fiscally, the way the Republicans already have been doing for the last 4 years. Then half of the Democrats will have a shot to regain respect and regain honor and get back to agreeing with Republicans on the basics such as Liberty and Freedom and the Constitution. They're gonna have to start by condemning their use of the nuclear option (I think 4 Democrats voted against it so there is a start already) and the other half of the Democrats will finally be recognized as the Socialists and Communists they are, but they will probably call themselves state Capitalists and the 'good' kind of central power authoritarians, who change rules in the name of getting things done, because as we all know, like with the thrice delayed Obamacare, "THERE IS NO TIME TO WASTE!!!!!!"

[Night Strike]

Sad part is when the executive branch is the one that appoints the judicial system, it cannot be considered an independent entity. This is the main reason the legislative branch had to approve nominees with a super majority prior to the so-called 'nuclear deal'.

This is still the case. The filibuster rules change did not affect judicial nominees.

Wrong. The following statement would be correct: This did not change the filibuster rules on SCOTUS nominees.

To clarify:
The nuclear option did change filibuster rules on judge appointments for the US Appeals court (circuit courts). Not to mention other courts such as: Tax court, DC Court of Appeals, Superior DC Court, Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, US District Court, Appeals for Veteran Claims.

Note the US Appeals court judges are lifetime positions for one of the most influential courts. There are 179 in total and about 30 (or 17%) are appointed in a presidential term.

Don't forget about the non-judicial executive branch "independent" judicial boards that get to review appeals to regulations that their same department unilaterally enacted. These include the NLRB (the one that unilaterally didn't want Boeing to create non-union jobs), the EPA, and others, including the Obamacare death panel (IPAB) where Obama will appoint everybody.

First, if 17% of the appeals court judges are appointed in a presidential term, that means that 83% are not -- and therefore independent of the current administration.

Obama is in his 2nd term, which would be about 34% of appeals court judges appointed by him by the end of 2016.

[thegreekdog]

I thought about it this morning, and there's a simple way to tell whether Republicans are objecting on the basis of party or country. If they reinstate this filibuster when they have the Senate majority, we'll know they really think it's a good thing for the country. If they don't, we'll know they were just trying to play politics.

That's kind of what I said before. It's like the whole thing with redistricting. It's racist if it's done by Party X, but it's not if it's done by Party Y.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm sure you do expect Republicans to just sit and get nuked and not do anything about it. This is classic good guy versus bad guy. The bad guy lies and cheats, and he knows the good guy will tell the truth and play by the rules, and the bad guy uses that knowledge against the good guy. Guess which one you are?

that's like saying "as soon as we Democrats are done nuking you, we'll see if you nuke us back. You better not, cuz you were saying using nukes was bad all along! Even after we nuked you, Republicans said they wouldn't do it before we used our nukes, so we expect Republicans to keep their word, even after we just finished nuking them"

War was declared by Democrats, and this is exactly what one would expect to see looking back as to what was the cause of America' second civil war. You can't just scrap Democracy and change the rules of our Republic and our Constitution and ignore election results and pretend like you have a supermajority.

People like you, who insist that what is happening in Congress is a 'war' where 'nuclear weapons' are being deployed, are hurting America. You can't even discuss a policy change without making reference to the consequences for the political parties. And as long as you do, you won't be advocating what's best for the country because Congressional leaders take their cues from what their constituents are talking about. If they see that the American people are interested in the poltical ramifications of their actions, then they will continue to respond to that. Stop gratifying them with your highly exaggerated rhetorical descriptions of mundane parliamentary rule changes and start actually talking policy.

[patrickaa317]

Sad part is when the executive branch is the one that appoints the judicial system, it cannot be considered an independent entity. This is the main reason the legislative branch had to approve nominees with a super majority prior to the so-called 'nuclear deal'.

This is still the case. The filibuster rules change did not affect judicial nominees.

Wrong. The following statement would be correct: This did not change the filibuster rules on SCOTUS nominees.

To clarify:
The nuclear option did change filibuster rules on judge appointments for the US Appeals court (circuit courts). Not to mention other courts such as: Tax court, DC Court of Appeals, Superior DC Court, Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, US District Court, Appeals for Veteran Claims.

Note the US Appeals court judges are lifetime positions for one of the most influential courts. There are 179 in total and about 30 (or 17%) are appointed in a presidential term.

Your original reasoning was wrong on multiple levels. First, if 17% of the appeals court judges are appointed in a presidential term, that means that 83% are not -- and therefore independent of the current administration. Second, the existence of the supermajority requirement doesn't change the fundamental equation -- the Senate is required to approve both executive and judicial nominees. It's just a different requirement for the Senate now. Third, your description is temporally dependent -- if Republicans had the majority right now, would you be claiming that the Senate has no oversight on nominees? Fourth, it was historically almost never the case that a super-majority was required to approve lower-level court judges, because the filibuster was almost never used on these appointments. So that can't have been the logic.

Additionally, the whole point of having lifetime appointments is to ensure judicial independence.

The appeals court judges are lifetime in length. On average, about 17% need to be replaced each term. Either way, these should still be subject to more than the executive branch and a simple majority in the Senate. The requirement that was lessened was the issue. It made the senate more of a mob rule than a representative republic.

I would never defend any party for suddenly changing something that had been in place for 226 years, especially when the same group people spoke about how bad of an idea it was just 8 years ago.

Just because filibuster was rarely used, doesn't mean the ability should be taken out. "Almost never used" means you are admitting it has been used in the past, probably for an extreme case. Would you be willing for someone to delete everything out of your house, computer, or phone just because you "almost never used it" over the last couple years?

The only reason any party would want this removed is simply to get some extreme left or right wing people in place that are not ok with more than a simple majority. I know this does not affect Supreme Court cases but a judicial nominee such as Robert Bork would be in place today rather than Anthony Kennedy (who is typically the tiebreaker of SCOTUS) if this was in place about 25 years ago. Would things really be better off to have an extreme partisan judge rather than one that is more middle of the road?

[Night Strike]

Don't forget, they didn't just change the filibuster rules: they broke the rules of changing the rules in order to make that change. Changes to chamber rules during a Senate term (every 2 years) can only be changed by a 2/3 majority vote. The Democrats decided that a majority rule was good enough and used the parliamentarian (a Democrat) to "deem" the simple majority vote acceptable to change the rules.

[notyou2]

Looks like whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

[AndyDufresne]

Don't forget, they didn't just change the filibuster rules: they broke the rules of changing the rules in order to make that change. Changes to chamber rules during a Senate term (every 2 years) can only be changed by a 2/3 majority vote. The Democrats decided that a majority rule was good enough and used the parliamentarian (a Democrat) to "deem" the simple majority vote acceptable to change the rules.

--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

The appeals court judges are lifetime in length. On average, about 17% need to be replaced each term. Either way, these should still be subject to more than the executive branch and a simple majority in the Senate. The requirement that was lessened was the issue. It made the senate more of a mob rule than a representative republic.

It is fascinating how people describe majority rule as "mob rule" when it relates to something they don't like, and have little complaint when the same rules are applied for other things. What you're objecting to is two-party politics, not majority rule. The reason the supermajority is currently seen as important is because we happen to be in a political time where the majority party typically has between 50-55 votes. If there were four or five parties of approximately equal strength, would you really be saying the same thing? Probably not, because people are judging 60 vote cloture requirements relative to contemporary American politics rather than an absolute sense of what a good parliamentary system is.

I would never defend any party for suddenly changing something that had been in place for 226 years, especially when the same group people spoke about how bad of an idea it was just 8 years ago.

Well, I'm asking people to stop talking about party and focus on whether this is a good thing for democracy. I don't care whether people think the Democrats are good guys or bad guys for doing this. The point is that there's a problem -- filibusters are occurring for political showmanship rather than because the nominees are seriously objectionable -- and this is a solution. Is it the best solution? That's up for debate. But is the removal of the filibuster a net better thing for our country than leaving it in place? I think it certainly will be in the short term, because it will leave more time for congressional debate about policy and less time for partisan tactics.

Also, you're a little mistaken on the history. The filibuster was not used until 1841, and it didn't exist as a tactic when Congress first was created. In fact, several of the Founding Fathers said some pretty negative things about filibusters:

A number of legal scholars have argued that the filibuster is unconstitutional. They note that the Constitution's framers did not intend to permit dilatory tactics that interfered with majority rule. James Madison, who's credited as the primary author of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist 58 that requiring more than a simple majority to pass legislation would violate "the fundamental principle of free government." "It would no longer be the majority that would rule," he explained. "The power would be transferred to the minority." In his "Manual of Parliamentary Procedure," which was officially adopted by the early Congress, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously."

Arguably, the filibuster contravenes the Framers' original constitutional design. The Constitution generally only requires a majority to take legislative action and specifically lays out where a supermajority is required (as in, for example, the requirement that two-thirds of senators vote to remove an officer impeached by the House). As the Supreme Court explained in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, where the Constitution enumerates exceptions to a general rule, those exceptions may be deemed the only ones legally available. In addition, the text also specifies that "a Majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do Business." Today the filibuster requires 60 votes to do much of the Senate's business, such as enacting legislation or confirming judicial and cabinet nominees.

Just because filibuster was rarely used, doesn't mean the ability should be taken out. "Almost never used" means you are admitting it has been used in the past, probably for an extreme case. Would you be willing for someone to delete everything out of your house, computer, or phone just because you "almost never used it" over the last couple years?

The filibuster is one of many obstructionist tactics a minority can invoke if the majority does something really crazy. If the minority is using it when the majority is not doing something crazy, it is being misused. And if it uses it so much that it seriously threatens progress on actual problem-solving in Congress (the whole point of having a government), then it needs to go.

The only reason any party would want this removed is simply to get some extreme left or right wing people in place that are not ok with more than a simple majority.

That's just not supported by the facts. Many of President Obama's nominees have not been extreme left- or right- wing people yet they were filibustered just the same. Some evidence for this is that many of the nominees were eventually approved -- indicating that there wasn't a serious substantive problem with the nominees. There's reason enough to remove it because it's being used against people who are qualified and not extreme nominees.

I know this does not affect Supreme Court cases but a judicial nominee such as Robert Bork would be in place today rather than Anthony Kennedy (who is typically the tiebreaker of SCOTUS) if this was in place about 25 years ago. Would things really be better off to have an extreme partisan judge rather than one that is more middle of the road?

Robert Bork was not filibustered, and it was not even publicly considered. A discussion of his record occurred in the Senate hearings, as it's supposed to happen, and a majority of Senators (58) were opposed to him after the hearings. Several members of the Republican party voted against him. Now, there's lots of controversy related to those hearings and I'm not necessarily defending how it went down. But my point is that you don't need a filibuster to defeat an unpopular candidate. And you might say that since the Democrats had the majority they didn't need to filibuster Bork -- but at the time it was not completely obvious that Democrats would get more than 51 votes against Bork.

And it's especially important, in the context of today's politics, to remember that the Democratic Party is not nearly as uniform in voting patterns as the Republicans. If an extreme left-wing candidate were proposed for a court position, it's far from obvious that 50 Democratic votes would be acquired.

Don't forget, they didn't just change the filibuster rules: they broke the rules of changing the rules in order to make that change. Changes to chamber rules during a Senate term (every 2 years) can only be changed by a 2/3 majority vote. The Democrats decided that a majority rule was good enough and used the parliamentarian (a Democrat) to "deem" the simple majority vote acceptable to change the rules.

Can you provide a source for that? I had been wondering how the Democrats removed the filibuster without getting filibustered :=D I know that Harry Reid has said in the past that he thought 67 votes were required to change this rule, so I'm wondering what changed his mind.

[Night Strike]

Well, I'm asking people to stop talking about party and focus on whether this is a good thing for democracy.

That is precisely why it's such a bad thing for the country. The United States is a Republic, NOT a Democracy. Republics have set rules for division of power and representation, including of minority political groups. Democracies are simple majority rule with no set rules or protections for the minorities. That is why a democracy is so dangerous, and why something being good for a democracy is very bad for individual rights and freedoms.

Can you provide a source for that? I had been wondering how the Democrats removed the filibuster without getting filibustered :=D I know that Harry Reid has said in the past that he thought 67 votes were required to change this rule, so I'm wondering what changed his mind.

He changed his mind simply because he wanted it done (that's called being a dictator by the way):

"What made the day so historic for senators, former senators and the small collection of parliamentary experts in Washington was the simple majority vote used to execute the changes — a tactic so extreme it is known as the 'nuclear option.'

Previous majorities had threatened to upend filibuster rules in this manner, but relying on a simple majority vote had been used only for relatively minor procedural changes to how amendments were handled, never to eliminate the super­majority requirement altogether. Before Thursday, the standard precedent was that major rule changes needed a two-thirds majority. The change was so significant that Reid and his leadership team held a victory party with liberal activists afterward in a room just off the Senate floor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ory_1.html

And it's especially important, in the context of today's politics, to remember that the Democratic Party is not nearly as uniform in voting patterns as the Republicans. If an extreme left-wing candidate were proposed for a court position, it's far from obvious that 50 Democratic votes would be acquired.

You've clearly never heard that McCain/Graham are VERY different, and often opposed to, Cruz/Lee. Hardly a uniform Republican party, which is precisely why Tea Partiers have gained power in working to remove lite Democrats such as McCain/Graham.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, I'm asking people to stop talking about party and focus on whether this is a good thing for democracy.

That is precisely why it's such a bad thing for the country. The United States is a Republic, NOT a Democracy. Republics have set rules for division of power and representation, including of minority political groups. Democracies are simple majority rule with no set rules or protections for the minorities. That is why a democracy is so dangerous, and why something being good for a democracy is very bad for individual rights and freedoms.

I really don't want to get into the "we're not a democracy" drivel yet again. I'm just going to ask you to re-read the James Madison quote, and tell me that you think you know better than him on this one.

[Night Strike]

Well, I'm asking people to stop talking about party and focus on whether this is a good thing for democracy.

That is precisely why it's such a bad thing for the country. The United States is a Republic, NOT a Democracy. Republics have set rules for division of power and representation, including of minority political groups. Democracies are simple majority rule with no set rules or protections for the minorities. That is why a democracy is so dangerous, and why something being good for a democracy is very bad for individual rights and freedoms.

I really don't want to get into the "we're not a democracy" drivel yet again. I'm just going to ask you to re-read the James Madison quote, and tell me that you think you know better than him on this one.

That's why there was compromise: the House was simple majority rule and the Senate had other thresholds to meet.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, I'm asking people to stop talking about party and focus on whether this is a good thing for democracy.

That is precisely why it's such a bad thing for the country. The United States is a Republic, NOT a Democracy. Republics have set rules for division of power and representation, including of minority political groups. Democracies are simple majority rule with no set rules or protections for the minorities. That is why a democracy is so dangerous, and why something being good for a democracy is very bad for individual rights and freedoms.

I really don't want to get into the "we're not a democracy" drivel yet again. I'm just going to ask you to re-read the James Madison quote, and tell me that you think you know better than him on this one.

That's why there was compromise: the House was simple majority rule and the Senate had other thresholds to meet.

Like the filibuster that didn't exist until after Madison was dead?

The point of Madison's quote is that it's true that the Senate has stricter rules than majority rule for certain decisions -- but those are specifically laid out by the framers because of their special nature. And those decisions are only made by the Senate to begin with, so comparing it to the House is disingenuous. He is clearly stating that majority rule is preferable in the general case for a legislative body. And indeed, the Senate did have majority rule when the first Congress met (except for those special decisions). So your argument doesn't match up historically.

[Night Strike]

Well, I'm asking people to stop talking about party and focus on whether this is a good thing for democracy.

That is precisely why it's such a bad thing for the country. The United States is a Republic, NOT a Democracy. Republics have set rules for division of power and representation, including of minority political groups. Democracies are simple majority rule with no set rules or protections for the minorities. That is why a democracy is so dangerous, and why something being good for a democracy is very bad for individual rights and freedoms.

I really don't want to get into the "we're not a democracy" drivel yet again. I'm just going to ask you to re-read the James Madison quote, and tell me that you think you know better than him on this one.

That's why there was compromise: the House was simple majority rule and the Senate had other thresholds to meet.

Like the filibuster that didn't exist until after Madison was dead?

The point of Madison's quote is that it's true that the Senate has stricter rules than majority rule for certain decisions -- but those are specifically laid out by the framers because of their special nature. And those decisions are only made by the Senate to begin with, so comparing it to the House is disingenuous. He is clearly stating that majority rule is preferable in the general case for a legislative body. And indeed, the Senate did have majority rule when the first Congress met (except for those special decisions). So your argument doesn't match up historically.

And the early Senates chose to extend those special situations to other situations. For example, the Constitution only set up a Supreme Court, not lower courts, so it was up to the Senate to decide on their own what threshold those nominations would require. Madison also probably didn't envision an executive branch that consists of dozens of confirmed appointments as well as dozens of cabinet-equal positions that were unconfirmed with all of them making their own laws to govern the people rather than the legislature passing those laws. In fact, he would probably classify today's executive branch as much closer to the tyranny they broke away from than the executive branch they established.