Thank you for sharing the historic perspective. This further confirms that it is democrats change the law to their own advantages, this is just one example. Unfortunately this one back fire
Let''s apply term limits to congress and senate first...we don''t want to see so many politicians in their 80s...they stay there for ages solely for themselves, e.g. power and money..
monofaye 发表于 2024-07-29 17:00 Let''s apply term limits to congress and senate first...we don''t want to see so many politicians in their 80s...they stay there for ages solely for themselves, e.g. power and money..
就楼主贴的文章，大家都读过了吗？ But did that apply to Supreme Court nominees? It did not – Reid did not change the rules for the Supreme Court, meaning nominees still effectively needed to meet the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster. But then the Senate and White House changed hands again. Republicans took the Senate in the 2014 elections and refused to consider President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell instead waited for the 2016 election, hoping a Republican would be elected president and nominate Scalia's successor. McConnell's move was criticized as an unprecedented breach of political norms, but he got his wish when Mr. Trump was elected. Mr. Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat in 2017, but with the GOP possessing only a narrow majority in the Senate, McConnell and his Republicans reached for the nuclear option. Once again, the parties flipped sides on whether the nuclear option was justified. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said he regretted that Reid had used the nuclear option in 2013, even though he had backed the move at the time. McConnell, an outspoken opponent of using the nuclear option when he was in the minority, now justified its use by citing what Reid did as precedent. The Senate rules were changed for Supreme Court nominees, allowing them to be confirmed by a simple majority. The conservative Gorsuch was confirmed days later to the Senate in a 54-to-45 vote. 所以到底谁真的下手的碰高法的，看清楚了
2infinitybeyond 发表于 2024-07-29 20:19 就楼主贴的文章，大家都读过了吗？ But did that apply to Supreme Court nominees? It did not – Reid did not change the rules for the Supreme Court, meaning nominees still effectively needed to meet the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster. But then the Senate and White House changed hands again. Republicans took the Senate in the 2014 elections and refused to consider President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell instead waited for the 2016 election, hoping a Republican would be elected president and nominate Scalia's successor. McConnell's move was criticized as an unprecedented breach of political norms, but he got his wish when Mr. Trump was elected. Mr. Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat in 2017, but with the GOP possessing only a narrow majority in the Senate, McConnell and his Republicans reached for the nuclear option. Once again, the parties flipped sides on whether the nuclear option was justified. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said he regretted that Reid had used the nuclear option in 2013, even though he had backed the move at the time. McConnell, an outspoken opponent of using the nuclear option when he was in the minority, now justified its use by citing what Reid did as precedent. The Senate rules were changed for Supreme Court nominees, allowing them to be confirmed by a simple majority. The conservative Gorsuch was confirmed days later to the Senate in a 54-to-45 vote. 所以到底谁真的下手的碰高法的，看清楚了
回复 36楼 的帖子 阅读理解题哈。第一，参议院民主党改了规则，而且在内阁和联邦法官的提名上用了这个nuclear option. Just because the Democrats didn’t GET TO USE THIS OPTION for SCOTUS, doesn’t mean that they weren’t 始作俑者。Based on my memory, there wasn’t a carve-out rule to make SCOTUS nomination exempt of the rule change. 第二，按照你quoted part of the article, Mitch McConnell 领导的参议院共和党多数派必须再次改变参议院规则才能把nuclear option用在高法。但是这篇文章就这一点一个字都没有交代，你不觉得很说明问题吗？ So the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Nevada''''''''''''''''s Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes.
如果你要找始作俑者 In 2003, the GOP controlled the White House and had the same 51-vote majority in the Senate they have today. But Democrats had begun filibustering a number of Bush's judicial nominees, which Republicans saw as an affront to their agenda. So Senate Republicans began toying around with an idea they called "the Hulk," a secret plan to remove the 60-vote threshold via a rule change. But it was the former Republican leader, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, who reportedly gave it the name that stuck:"the nuclear option." 那为什么共和党没有率先做这件事？因为他们道德高尚吗？不是，是因为2004年他们占了majority，没用上。 奥巴马时期高法大法官的任命一直通不过，因为gop filibuster。那时候dem也没有用nuclear option哦。倒是mcconnel硬是把任命推到川普上任，然后动用了nuclear option。 到了Kavanaugh的时候，他堪堪50票低空飞过。真是民主的耻辱。
如果你要找始作俑者 In 2003, the GOP controlled the White House and had the same 51-vote majority in the Senate they have today. But Democrats had begun filibustering a number of Bush's judicial nominees, which Republicans saw as an affront to their agenda. So Senate Republicans began toying around with an idea they called "the Hulk," a secret plan to remove the 60-vote threshold via a rule change. But it was the former Republican leader, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, who reportedly gave it the name that stuck:"the nuclear option." 那为什么共和党没有率先做这件事？因为他们道德高尚吗？不是，是因为2004年他们占了majority，没用上。 奥巴马时期高法大法官的任命一直通不过，因为gop filibuster。那时候dem也没有用nuclear option哦。倒是mcconnel硬是把任命推到川普上任，然后动用了nuclear option。 到了Kavanaugh的时候，他堪堪50票低空飞过。真是民主的耻辱。 2infinitybeyond 发表于 2024-07-29 22:09
Well, we each will just have to pick our own side of facts then. Senate is quite different from the House, and the difference is somewhat parallel to the House of Lords vs. the House of Commons in UK. The Senate, comparatively speaking, is supposed to be more cordial, academic, and collegial. It’s supposed to be a deliberative body of consensus. The rules for Senate are far more stable too, and if I remember correctly, filibuster has been on the rule book over a hundred years. The idea is that, if you can’t find 60% of members to agree on something, then ‘a government that governs the least, is a government that governs the best’, the proposed law perhaps is better off dead. Jefferson famously proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence: ‘Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes’. And sadly, in my opinion, for the topic at hand, Democrats were the ones that changed the rule for expediency and power, and we as a country became less because of it.
来了十几年，也没读过独立宣言，只记得去费城时见过。 一直以为自己知道第一句，结果上网一查，只知道半句。 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/the-declaration-of-independence-july-4-1776
本来最高法院大法官需要参议院60票才能批准。这基本上保证了大法官必须是两党都能接受的。但2003年的时候，民主党利用这个，故意阻挡布什的多个大法官提名人选。共和党虽然反对也没有办法。 2013年，民主党控制了白宫和参议院。为了防止共和党阻挡大法官提名，他们通过法案将60票批准改成了51票（简单多数）。就是因为这个改动，造成了back fire，让川普一举任命了多个保守派大法官。
但民主党是不会认赌服输的，所以现在又提出任期限制。但这会不会在将来造成更多的保守派大法官就不知道了。不过是的话估计到时候又会要求再改。反正赢不了就改规则。
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/
那些觉得总统候选人年纪太大了的，应该对任期限制没意见吧
能不能别这么错误百出啊？Thomas 52-48被确认的，Alito 58-42被确认的，都没拿到60票啊 相反奥巴马提名的两个女法官都拿到了60票，克林顿提名的更是高达90票。
民主党当初不改成简单多数的话，川普的提名是不可能在参议院通过的。
我觉得挺好的，废除高院
不要高估任何人的智慧， 哈哈。
开国之父也是人， 当时随便copy 法国英国的法律，也许不致于这样。
老毛也是， 随便copy 欧美任何一个国家， 中国也许也不致于这样。
当然， 历史没法重来。
你这就是胡说八道了，如果你说绝对多数是有意义的还说的过去，无限任期绝对是个毒瘤。Founding Fathers 还是太简单太天真，不知道大法官是可以用钱，豪华旅游，大学学费，和私人飞机买通的。
开国之父还养黑奴呢。 开国之父还没给女性选举权呢。
dem就是很蠢每次都是为了眼前利益改制度，13年改endingfilibuster从60majority到simple majority以后已经back fire了好几次。本来15年Merrick Garland被08提名大法官就是多亏这个愚蠢的修改，gop一直filibuster导致提名通不过一直拖到16年trump上台提名Gorsush。估计那个时候merrick garland和trump的私人恩怨就结下了，所以现在司法报复不择手段
议员的问题在于他们是民选的，不是任命的。如果选区里的人就认为某候选人是最合适的年纪大也无可厚非。
什么叫不择手段？不都是司法途径么。
This country was founded by a group of slave owners, who tell us everyone is born equal.
楼主没错。解释一下，以前提名需要过filibuster， 需要60票。议员可以放弃filibuster，但投反对票。
民主党改了规则，不让filibuster阻止Obama的提名，等共和党掌权，backfire了。
领导改规则的这个参议员领袖是Nevada的Harry Reid。在Obama支持下干的。
什么叫司法途径？他和银行做贷款，assets的value难道不是银行apprasier同意的吗？freemarket私有银行和私有企业交易，你情我愿，政府凭啥说违法违规？完全是个no victim cass，最后罚款还要充公给政府，凭啥？就像是你做home equity loan，你说你房子值5M，银行appraiser也同意给你发了贷款，几年以后你还完贷款，双方皆大欢喜，结果政府说你房子不值这个钱你这个借贷不合法要罚款，然后有找不到利益受损的任何一方，但是非要你交50万充公，政府说他走的也是司法途径。。。好像司法途径就是合理合法的一样！搞笑！那还要高院干嘛
哈哈
对，人心不古， founding father 确实很天真。他们肯定想不到参众两院的议员都被大机构收买了。
这个帖子里只能暴露支持dem这些人贫乏的知识和有限的智商。讨论政治在华人就是浪费时间。。。话虽这么说，好像我也真没少浪费时间，检讨一下😫
能不能别这么天真啊？Alito听证会时，共和党就说了民主党要filibuster(最后确实也没成功)他们就启动nuclear option. 提名系统早就崩坏了，不是说民主党遵守规则，共和党就会遵守规则的。共和党没有任何要谦让的意思。
美国国父都是白人，男性。。思想高度统一，早就脱离现今社会全球化多元化的主流了。应该让DEI团队重新修订宪法，白人至上的糟粕早早扔掉。圣经更是把女性打成男性附属品，以后全都违宪。
总统也是选举的，总统有term limit
是这么回事，当时民主党里也有人反对这么做，不过胳膊拧不过大腿，最后民主党搬石头砸自己的脚
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/bXoF7w6IWAc?si=qQkJUcApH9Nsr7z6
下面是Senator Rand Paul (one of my favorites), 为了阻止Patriot Act, filibuster in real life. I wish he were the President of the United States.
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/E1_9nSzG_hk?si=ABTSqV9icFN4_dxG
通俗地讲，就是又坏又蠢
But did that apply to Supreme Court nominees? It did not – Reid did not change the rules for the Supreme Court, meaning nominees still effectively needed to meet the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster. But then the Senate and White House changed hands again. Republicans took the Senate in the 2014 elections and refused to consider President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell instead waited for the 2016 election, hoping a Republican would be elected president and nominate Scalia's successor.
McConnell's move was criticized as an unprecedented breach of political norms, but he got his wish when Mr. Trump was elected. Mr. Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat in 2017, but with the GOP possessing only a narrow majority in the Senate, McConnell and his Republicans reached for the nuclear option. Once again, the parties flipped sides on whether the nuclear option was justified. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said he regretted that Reid had used the nuclear option in 2013, even though he had backed the move at the time. McConnell, an outspoken opponent of using the nuclear option when he was in the minority, now justified its use by citing what Reid did as precedent.
The Senate rules were changed for Supreme Court nominees, allowing them to be confirmed by a simple majority. The conservative Gorsuch was confirmed days later to the Senate in a 54-to-45 vote.
所以到底谁真的下手的碰高法的，看清楚了
2/3 与否不是根本问题， 现在的主要问题是， 两院党派划分， 基本没有任何是非观念， 只要你支持的， 我就反对。
判断是非很难吗？ 大部分的是非普通人的智力水平就够了， 两院专业扯蛋而已。
阅读理解题哈。第一，参议院民主党改了规则，而且在内阁和联邦法官的提名上用了这个nuclear option. Just because the Democrats didn’t GET TO USE THIS OPTION for SCOTUS, doesn’t mean that they weren’t 始作俑者。Based on my memory, there wasn’t a carve-out rule to make SCOTUS nomination exempt of the rule change. 第二，按照你quoted part of the article, Mitch McConnell 领导的参议院共和党多数派必须再次改变参议院规则才能把nuclear option用在高法。但是这篇文章就这一点一个字都没有交代，你不觉得很说明问题吗？
So the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Nevada''''''''''''''''s Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes.
So Senate Republicans began toying around with an idea they called "the Hulk," a secret plan to remove the 60-vote threshold via a rule change. But it was the former Republican leader, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, who reportedly gave it the name that stuck:"the nuclear option."
那为什么共和党没有率先做这件事？因为他们道德高尚吗？不是，是因为2004年他们占了majority，没用上。
奥巴马时期高法大法官的任命一直通不过，因为gop filibuster。那时候dem也没有用nuclear option哦。倒是mcconnel硬是把任命推到川普上任，然后动用了nuclear option。
到了Kavanaugh的时候，他堪堪50票低空飞过。真是民主的耻辱。
这次参院要竞选连任的大多数都是民主党，要是GOP顺水推舟废掉filibuster就搞笑了，这是比废掉nuclear option更大的一块石头
Well, we each will just have to pick our own side of facts then. Senate is quite different from the House, and the difference is somewhat parallel to the House of Lords vs. the House of Commons in UK. The Senate, comparatively speaking, is supposed to be more cordial, academic, and collegial. It’s supposed to be a deliberative body of consensus. The rules for Senate are far more stable too, and if I remember correctly, filibuster has been on the rule book over a hundred years. The idea is that, if you can’t find 60% of members to agree on something, then ‘a government that governs the least, is a government that governs the best’, the proposed law perhaps is better off dead.
Jefferson famously proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence: ‘Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes’. And sadly, in my opinion, for the topic at hand, Democrats were the ones that changed the rule for expediency and power, and we as a country became less because of it.
来了十几年，也没读过独立宣言，只记得去费城时见过。 一直以为自己知道第一句，结果上网一查，只知道半句。
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/the-declaration-of-independence-july-4-1776
只要在这个制度的程序允许的行为（比如，filibuster，或者靠程序来废除一部分filibuster；靠党派的力量控制国会；靠联合对方党派中的少数来通过法案。。。），乱扣帽子是没啥意义的。否则大家是不是可以直接说美国就是两党专政？当然可以说，但有意义么？这就是这个制度允许的玩法。
议员加限期合理啊，这么高的位置哪个位置加限期都说得过去。
如你所说，只要是民选就可以的话，操纵民意和选举猫腻在世界各地都不少见啊。给议员加个限期不是万能的，但至少可以尽大量让系统更好的运行。