More problems surface in the Senate due to President Obama's recent nomination of Patricia Ann Millets, a Washington lawyer, to the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama has the support of fellow Democrats, but, once again, problems have surfaced due to heavy Republican opposition. Republicans do not see why the government should pay for any more justices when the workload within the Supreme Court is already so small. John Cornyn, a Senator from Texas, highlights his party's intentions with the simple statement, "we intend to stop it." By now, America knows what that means... the filibuster. In order for Millets to overcome this recently publicized "f" word, she needs 60 votes total, meaning 5 would have to come from the Republican party. If she cannot receive these 5 votes, Senior Democrats say that there is no other option than to try to change the Senate's rules on filibusters.
Though it was once rare, the filibuster has become the default solution of the Senate, shutting out every bill that doesn't have the unrealistic 60% support. It has grown into a controversial issue due to the undemocratic power that gives to the minority, but I honestly don't see any sort of solution in the near future. While many ambitious Democrats aim to fix this element, they are clearly forgetting a gigantic obstacle: the 60% support that would be needed... a number that is completely unobtainable in today's heavily divided Senate. While I see the need for a change regarding the filibuster, it is very unlikely that such a large agreement would be made in a time that is underlined for strongly divided parties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/us/politics/between-democrats-and-a-push-for-filibuster-change-one-nominee.html?ref=politics
No comments:
Post a Comment