Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Democracy Returns to the Senate

Democracy Returns to the Senate
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: November 21, 2013 2 Comments
 
For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation 
votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President 
Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal 
agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the 
point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and 
threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical 
thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.
 
In a 52-to-48 vote that substantially altered the balance of power in 
Washington, the Senate changed its most infuriating rule and effectively 
ended the filibuster on executive and judicial appointments. From now 
on, if any senator tries to filibuster a presidential nominee, that 
filibuster can be stopped with a simple majority, not the 60-vote 
requirement of the past. That means a return to the democratic process 
of giving nominees an up-or-down vote, allowing them to be either 
confirmed or rejected by a simple majority.
 
The only exceptions are nominations to the Supreme Court, where a 
filibuster would still be allowed. But now that the Senate has begun to 
tear down undemocratic procedures, the precedent set on Thursday will 
increase the pressure to end those filibusters, too.
 
This vote was long overdue. “I have waited 18 years for this moment,” 
said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.
 
It would have been unthinkable just a few months ago, when the majority 
leader, Harry Reid, was still holding out hope for a long-lasting deal 
with Republicans and insisting that federal judges, because of their 
lifetime appointments, should still be subject to supermajority 
thresholds. But Mr. Reid, along with all but three Senate Democrats, was 
pushed to act by the Republicans’ refusal to allow any appointments to 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, just 
because they wanted to keep a conservative majority on that important court.
 
That move was as outrageous as the tactic they used earlier this year to 
try to cripple the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau (which they despise) by blocking all 
appointments to those agencies. That obstruction was removed in July 
when Mr. Reid threatened to end the filibuster and Republicans backed 
down. The recent blockade of judges to the D.C. appellate court was the 
last straw.
 
Republicans warned that the rule change could haunt the Democrats if 
they lose the White House and the Senate. But the Constitution gives 
presidents the right to nominate top officials in their administration 
and name judges, and says nothing about the ability of a Senate minority 
to stop them. (The practice barely existed before the 1970s.) From now 
on, voters will have to understand that presidents are likely to get 
their way on nominations if their party controls the Senate. Given the 
extreme degree of Republican obstruction during the Obama 
administration, the Democrats had little choice but to change the 
filibuster rule. As Mr. Reid noted on the floor, half of all filibusters 
waged against nominations in Senate history have occurred since Mr. 
Obama was elected. Twenty of his district court nominees were 
filibustered; only three such filibusters took place before he took 
office. There has also been a record-setting amount of delay in 
approving the president’s choices for cabinet positions and federal 
agency posts, even in cases when no objections were raised about a 
nominee’s qualifications.
 
The rule change does not end the 60-vote threshold for blocking 
legislation, which we have argued is worth preserving. But the vote may 
lead to broader filibuster changes. A proposal by several younger 
Democratic senators to require “talking filibusters” — forcing objecting 
lawmakers to stand up at length and make their cases — may well gain 
steam now, and could finally spell an end to logjams that have prevented 
important legislation from reaching votes.
 
Democrats made the filibuster change with a simple-majority vote, which 
Republicans insisted was a violation of the rules. There is ample 
precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously. 
Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary 
to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.
-- 
Namib
.....
Земля - колыбель человечества, но нельзя вечно жить в колыбели
(Константи́н Эдуа́рдович Циолко́вский)

 Democracy Returns to the Senate
 
tsnto se Obama continua così l'anno prossimo alle elezioni di midterm i repubblicani andranno maggioranza anche in senato, e anzichè filibustering bocceranno su due piedi tutte le nomine di Obama, in attesa di riprendersi anche la presidenza e nominare dei freaks che al confronto i neocon erano dei moderati, senza che i democratici ci potranno fare niente. Molto furbi i dems, davvero!

 tsnto se Obama continua così l'anno prossimo alle elezioni di midterm i repubblicani andranno maggioranza anche in senato
 
sempre che ci sia ancora un solo partito repubblicano. 
 

 sempre che ci sia ancora un solo partito repubblicano.
 
non mi pare che siano stati molto disuniti nell'opporsi al finanziamento di una legge già votata.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/adb59d102e310131402c001dd8b71c47
 
il gioco delle parti tra moderati e estremisti di destra ormai lo fa persino Berlusconi...

Quando non riescono a mettersi d'accordo su un candidato non e' un gioco delle parti. E' che proprio i repubblicani si stanno spaccando.

 Quando non riescono a mettersi d'accordo su un candidato non e' un gioco delle parti. E' che proprio i repubblicani si stanno spaccando.
 
quante elezioni hanno perso quando volevano vincere? IMHO, nessuna. E le presidenziali non contano, spiego perchè:nel 2008 anche senza Obama qualunque candidato venendo dopo Bush era spacciato.
Nel 2012 hanno palesemente voluto perdere, visto che hanno messo in campo il perdente delle primarie del 2008, in quanto l'unico obiettivo del GOP e dei suoi finanziatori era avere la maggioranza in almeno uno dei due rami del parlamento per fermare qualsiasi riforma seria proposta da Obama. E infatti alla Camera hanno conservato la maggioranza, con decine e decine di deputati eletti in stati dove Obama ha vinto. Qualche caso può succedere, quando avviene sistematicamente è una strategia. E il comportamento dei parlamentari del GOP l'ha confermato.