Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
PhantomViper wrote: The Democrats won the Senate, don't you think that its past time that the Republicans actually abide by the will of the America people instead of just trying to sandbag everything?
This isn't about the will of the people. It's about rules of the Senate that have been in place for over 200 years. Harry Reid himself said that doing what was done today would be un-American.
But since there are people posting who don't have or care about the facts, I thought I'd supply some for everyone to look at and debate. To that end, I bring you fact checking from politifact.com
Jon Greenberg, Angie Drobnic Holan, and Louis Jacobson wrote: Fact-checking the filibuster
Weary of delaying tactics that prevent President Barack Obama’s nominees from being confirmed, Senate Democrats are looking to change Senate rules in hopes of speeding up confirmation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants Obama’s appointments to require only 50 votes to get through the process, as opposed to the 60 votes currently required to clear the way. Currently, Democrats control 55 Senate votes while Republicans have 45.
The controversy over filibuster rules has been brewing for months, with nonpartisan congressional watchers expressing concern over how gridlocked the Senate has become.
We’ve fact-checked several claims about filibusters here at PolitiFact. The details behind the Senate procedures are complex, and it’s not easy to come up with a straightforward measurement to quantify delays.
Here are highlights from a few of our key fact-checks:
• Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing political attacks back home for his role in leading Republican opposition to Obama’s agenda. His Democratic opponent is Alison Lundergan Grimes, and a recent ad of hers tagged McConnell as "guardian of gridlock," noting that "he’s blocked the Senate over 400 times."
We looked into how filibusters are counted and found that the metric the ad uses -- the number of cloture votes filed -- in an imperfect way of trying to count up obstruction. It may overcount the obstruction, but it’s possible it undercounts it as well. We rated the statement Half True.
• McConnell defended himself from charges of obstruction during a July interview on Meet the Press. "The president has had 1,540 of his nominations confirmed, only four defeated."
McConnell’s numbers weren’t off, but his count ignores nominees who withdrew before a vote, including 38 people who withdrew after facing opposition. The numbers also don’t account for people who were never formally nominated because of early opposition. We rated his statement Half True.
• Republicans have focused some of their opposition on Obama’s nominees to an influential federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They say that the the court doesn’t need a full complement of judges to get its work done.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, made this claim in a June statement. "It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda."
We looked at whether Obama’s nominations could accurately be described as court packing. We found that genuine court packing has involved one branch of government proposing changes the structure of the courts by either expanding or decreasing the number of judges. That's not what Obama's doing. We rated the claim False.
• Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, claimed that Democrats have exaggerated the level of opposition to Obama’s nominees, using the case of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as an example. "This is not any attempt to kill this nomination. This is not a filibuster," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said during floor debate in February. "I realize it is the headline the majority leader would like the newspapers to write."
Rather than trying to kill the nomination, Cornyn said, senators simply wanted more information. Still, the way Hagel’s confirmation was handled seemed designed to delay, and we found a failed vote on Feb. 14 that clearly stopped the nomination from moving forward. Overall, we rated Cornyn’s statement Mostly False.
• Obama complained during a June press conference that his nominees were being subjected to undue delays. "My judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor," he said.
That’s true if you count waiting time from committee approval to confirmation, but not if you count the full period from nomination to confirmation. As it turns out, the average wait for George W. Bush’s circuit court nominees was actually longer from nomination to confirmation. We rated his statement Half True.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/21 20:31:55
Honestly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve on the issue.
When you abuse privileges, you will sometimes lose them. The Republicans in the Senate, from day 1 of Obama being in office, have abused the privilege of the filibuster.
The filibuster came into existence as a tool to keep a runaway majority from completely removing the minority from the conversation and abusing their power as the majority. The problem is, at some point somebody realized they could just march a filibuster out whenever, and invented the filibuster that didn't even require anybody to actually, you know, "filibuster," and the result has been that literally everything that goes before the Senate gets held up.
So frankly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve. McConnell whining about it and threatening to end filibusters altogether is short sighted (I doubt they do it since if they lose power suddenly they can't stop ANY legislation or Supreme Court nominations), but even if McConnell did, it's still a stupid response. He led the charge to block as many nominations as possible, abusing his power, and now doesn't want to accept the consequences of that. Too bad, so sad, you brought this upon yourself.
DogofWar1 wrote: Honestly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve on the issue.
When you abuse privileges, you will sometimes lose them. The Republicans in the Senate, from day 1 of Obama being in office, have abused the privilege of the filibuster.
The filibuster came into existence as a tool to keep a runaway majority from completely removing the minority from the conversation and abusing their power as the majority. The problem is, at some point somebody realized they could just march a filibuster out whenever, and invented the filibuster that didn't even require anybody to actually, you know, "filibuster," and the result has been that literally everything that goes before the Senate gets held up.
So frankly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve. McConnell whining about it and threatening to end filibusters altogether is short sighted (I doubt they do it since if they lose power suddenly they can't stop ANY legislation or Supreme Court nominations), but even if McConnell did, it's still a stupid response. He led the charge to block as many nominations as possible, abusing his power, and now doesn't want to accept the consequences of that. Too bad, so sad, you brought this upon yourself.
This post just sums up everything wrong with the political thought process in America today.
Personally I think the current filibuster rules are rather odd. When you have two competing viewpoints in such close numbers, nothing gets done. If they want to stop a law they should campaign against it. Telling people what they think is wrong with it, and trying to get the citizenry up in arms about it. If the majority of Americans don't want the law, it will probably be stopped. All you have to do is to look at SOPA and PIPA to see that. And if that doesn't work, have a good old-fashioned filibuster.
I still think it's stupid. A majority is a majority, democrat, republican, or whatever. Jut because 40% of people don't support a bill, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
DogofWar1 wrote: When you abuse privileges, you will sometimes lose them.
Privileges? We're talking about a Senate rule that has been in place for 200 years. And this rule wasn't changed when Bush was President.
DogofWar1 wrote: The filibuster came into existence as a tool to keep a runaway majority from completely removing the minority from the conversation and abusing their power as the majority. The problem is, at some point somebody realized they could just march a filibuster out whenever, and invented the filibuster that didn't even require anybody to actually, you know, "filibuster," and the result has been that literally everything that goes before the Senate gets held up.
Again, this has been the order of business for 200 years. Nothing you have written is new.
DogofWar1 wrote: [McConnell] led the charge to block as many nominations as possible, abusing his power, and now doesn't want to accept the consequences of that. Too bad, so sad, you brought this upon yourself.
The facts (outlined above) don't support your argument. Four nominations were blocked. 38 withdrew without a vote. 1,540 were confirmed. The average wait for George W. Bush’s circuit court nominees was actually longer from nomination to confirmation.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still think it's stupid. A majority is a majority, democrat, republican, or whatever. Jut because 40% of people don't support a bill, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law.
You should take some time and research why the filibuster rule was designed and left in place for over 200 years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/21 21:00:34
DogofWar1 wrote: Honestly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve on the issue.
When you abuse privileges, you will sometimes lose them. The Republicans in the Senate, from day 1 of Obama being in office, have abused the privilege of the filibuster.
The filibuster came into existence as a tool to keep a runaway majority from completely removing the minority from the conversation and abusing their power as the majority. The problem is, at some point somebody realized they could just march a filibuster out whenever, and invented the filibuster that didn't even require anybody to actually, you know, "filibuster," and the result has been that literally everything that goes before the Senate gets held up.
So frankly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve. McConnell whining about it and threatening to end filibusters altogether is short sighted (I doubt they do it since if they lose power suddenly they can't stop ANY legislation or Supreme Court nominations), but even if McConnell did, it's still a stupid response. He led the charge to block as many nominations as possible, abusing his power, and now doesn't want to accept the consequences of that. Too bad, so sad, you brought this upon yourself.
This post just sums up everything wrong with the political thought process in America today.
The filibuster is also a relic of a time when party affiliation wasn't the only factor in how a senator voted. Lots of legislation was built around geographic or ideological blocs that crossed party lines.
More practically, filibusters usually lasted until enough senators got concessions, earmarks, or other favors in exchange for their vote. It was, in a simpler time, a tool of compromise. If you wanted to get 60 senators, you often needed to sweeten the pot for a few.
It has now increasingly become a standard tool for the minority to simply refuse to budge on nealry any issue. As the parties become increasingly monolithic, the opportunities for actual movement dry up.
I'm still not sure I agree with Reid on this, but its hard to argue that congressional republicans have been interested in working with Obama or the Dems.
As for Reid flip-flopping, his statement came in 2005, when there were far fewer filibusters happening. That changed significantly once the Democrats gained a Senate majority, upwards.
So is his prior statement inconsistent with his present action? Yes. Is there a reason they are inconsistent? Yes, the situation has changed.
The modern use of the filibuster started happening in the 70s while Nixon was president and the Republicans were in the minority. Even then, it wasn't necessarily the stalling tactic it is today. The first big jump came in '93-'94, during the first two years of Clinton's presidency while Republicans were still in the minority. After that the trend was pretty flat, even retreating slightly.
Then, of course, we can all see the big jump that happened for the '07-''08 Congress. The game has changed since 2005.
What's strange is that I thought that the Senate’s rules require a 2/3rds vote to change procedural rules mid-session. o.O I'm trying to google-fu that down, but not coming up with anything yet...
Here's a little more history on HOW the filibuster was being used:
Harry Reid is set to “go nuclear.” He wants to end the filibuster as it applies to appellate court nominations — not by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, as Senate rules require, but by a simple majority. And given the short memories now in evidence, he may just succeed.
On Monday, for the third time in less than a month, Senate Republicans filibustered an Obama nominee to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That’s the court that’s checked the president more than once, as when it said he couldn’t make “recess appointments” when the Senate wasn’t in recess. So in a Tuesday closed-door lunch, Reid moved closer to ending the practice, and it’s reported he picked up crucial support from California Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer along with Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy among others.
The hypocrisy here should not go unnoticed. Although the filibuster for legislation has a long history, prior to 2003 it was seldom used to block executive-branch nominations — and appellate-court nominees in particular. In fact, Democrats themselves began using it this way in the 108th Congress, after they lost the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections. Here’s the backstory.
Start with Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court’s December 2000 decision that effectively decided the presidential outcome, creating a firestorm among Democrats, especially among the legal professoriate. On January 13, 2001, for example, 554 professors from 120 law schools took out a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning the Court’s majority for having acted not as judges but as “political proponents for candidate Bush.” And at a Democratic retreat a month later Yale’s Bruce Ackerman urged members not to confirm a single Bush nominee for the Supreme Court until after the 2004 elections.
Democrats got their break in May when Vermont senator James Jeffords left the Republican party. That switched control of the Senate to the Democrats, who immediately turned their attention to the eleven appellate court nominees then before the Senate Judiciary Committee, two of them Democrats — a gesture from Bush. Those two were immediately confirmed. The rest would not even get hearings. Instead, Democrats began calling for “litmus tests” — explicit demands that nominees state their views on everything from abortion to affirmative action to Congress’s unquestioned power to regulate anything and everything.
But the near lock-down on appellate-court nominations did not end with the 2002 midterm elections, which switched control of the Senate back to the Republicans. It was then that Senate Democrats began the unprecedented filibustering of appellate-court nominations. The most egregious case was that of Miguel Estrada, whose life story was pure American dream. First nominated by President Bush in May 2001, Estrada finally withdrew his name from further consideration some 27 months later, after seven failed cloture votes in the next, 108th Congress.
Things came to a head early in the 109th Congress when Republicans themselves, still in control of the Senate, threatened finally to “go nuclear” — to end the appellate-court filibusters Democrats had introduced only in the previous Congress. That was headed off when the bipartisan “Gang of 14” reached a compromise: Democrats would filibuster nominees only in “extraordinary circumstances,” they agreed, and Republicans would not use the nuclear option. That compromise held for the rest of the 109th Congress — though not without difficulties — but it became moot after Democrats regained control of the Senate following the 2006 midterm elections since they no longer needed to filibuster Bush nominees.
In sum, after the 2000 election was decided, Senate Democrats sat on their hands for two years as Bush appellate-court nominees twisted in the wind. In the minority after the 2002 elections, those Democrats then initiated the filibuster for many of Bush’s nominees. Only after the 2005 Gang of 14 compromise was imposed did things settle down. And after the 2006 elections, Democrats no longer needed to filibuster.
So is the Republican use of the filibuster today simply fair turn-around — with Democrats in no position to complain when Republicans use tactics they themselves introduced? If so, that would be enough to illustrate the hypocrisy of today’s Democratic protests. But that’s not what’s at issue here. In the D.C. Circuit matter, which has driven Senator Reid to the nuclear option, Republicans are not raising ideological objections to Obama’s nominees — as Democrats did when they filibustered Bush’s picks. Their objection, rather, is that these judges are not needed, because the workload of the court is so light. In fact, speaking of hypocrisy, Democrats, in the minority in the 109th Congress, used that very rationale to urge Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter in a July 2006 letter not to confirm any additional Bush nominees to the D.C. Circuit — and none was confirmed after that letter from Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin was sent, all of whom are still on the committee. Yet now, when the court’s workload is even lighter, Democrats cry foul when Republicans point that out.
In fact, look at the numbers from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In 2006, written decisions per active judge had declined by 17 percent since 1997. Since 2006 they have declined another 27 percent. In 2006, the total number of appeals filed had declined by 10 percent since 1997. Since 2006 they have declined another 18 percent. The Administrative Office ranks the twelve circuits using various caseload benchmarks: 2013 is the 17th straight year that the office has ranked the D.C. Circuit last on both appeals being filed and appeals being terminated. There simply is no need for more judges on the D.C. Circuit when those there now do not have enough to do — unless, of course, the aim is to have a bench more sympathetic to rule by presidential diktat, which may be precisely why Senator Reid wants to go nuclear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DogofWar1 wrote: Honestly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve on the issue.
When you abuse privileges, you will sometimes lose them. The Republicans in the Senate, from day 1 of Obama being in office, have abused the privilege of the filibuster.
The filibuster came into existence as a tool to keep a runaway majority from completely removing the minority from the conversation and abusing their power as the majority. The problem is, at some point somebody realized they could just march a filibuster out whenever, and invented the filibuster that didn't even require anybody to actually, you know, "filibuster," and the result has been that literally everything that goes before the Senate gets held up.
So frankly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve. McConnell whining about it and threatening to end filibusters altogether is short sighted (I doubt they do it since if they lose power suddenly they can't stop ANY legislation or Supreme Court nominations), but even if McConnell did, it's still a stupid response. He led the charge to block as many nominations as possible, abusing his power, and now doesn't want to accept the consequences of that. Too bad, so sad, you brought this upon yourself.
me thinks you need to read history some more...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/21 21:02:41
Yes... keep arguing and blocking one another... one day we shall return across the sea, sun glinting on Sheffield Steel and shining on blood red jackets and your political processes shall be paralysed unable to resist your return to the Empire!
SilverMK2 wrote: Yes... keep arguing and blocking one another... one day we shall return across the sea, sun glinting on Sheffield Steel and shining on blood red jackets and your political processes shall be paralysed unable to resist your return to the Empire!
Which one? The Spanish Empire or Napoleon's?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
SilverMK2 wrote: Yes... keep arguing and blocking one another... one day we shall return across the sea, sun glinting on Sheffield Steel and shining on blood red jackets and your political processes shall be paralysed unable to resist your return to the Empire!
Which one? The Spanish Empire or Napoleon's?
Well, neither of those used Sheffield Steel or red jackets - damn rebel traitor!
SilverMK2 wrote: Yes... keep arguing and blocking one another... one day we shall return across the sea, sun glinting on Sheffield Steel and shining on blood red jackets and your political processes shall be paralysed unable to resist your return to the Empire!
Which one? The Spanish Empire or Napoleon's?
Well, neither of those used Sheffield Steel or red jackets - damn rebel traitor!
Texas was never part of Britain you steenking English. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Breotan wrote: Privileges? We're talking about a Senate rule that has been in place for 200 years. And this rule wasn't changed when Bush was President.
Again, this has been the order of business for 200 years. Nothing you have written is new.
The facts (outlined above) don't support your argument. Four nominations were blocked. 38 withdrew without a vote. 1,540 were confirmed. The average wait for George W. Bush’s circuit court nominees was actually longer from nomination to confirmation.
The filibuster has changed since it first came about. Until 1917, there was not even such a thing as a cloture vote, it was just expected that a Senator would speak as long as they wished, say their piece, and then an up or down vote would occur. The most recent major change occurred in 1975, when the ability to cause a filibuster, but not need to stand and argue, was implemented.
So, no, this has not been business as usual for 200 years, and as the chart I posted shows, the upward trend tends to happen when Republicans are in the minority, and it jumped MASSIVELY when Republicans became the minority after 2006.
As for the raw number on nominations, there's a reason politifact rated McConnell's statement as "half true." One has to take into account the nominations that have simply sat in committee because they can't reach a final vote in the Senate because of the filibuster. Many major agencies, in addition to judicial posts, were stuck in committee. As such the numbers are somewhat misleading, since nominees left in filibuster limbo don't really show up.
Politifact mentioned that while the total time for nominees might have been longer under Bush 43, the time they sat between Committee passage and senate votes was much longer for Obama nominees.
Where Obama has a point is if you measure the time from the point of committee approval to confirmation -- in other words, the period when the nomination is on the Senate floor, where it can be filibustered.
For an Obama circuit court nominee, the average wait from committee approval to confirmation was 138.5 days -- almost four times the duration under George W. Bush, which was 35.3 days. The median waits were similarly divergent: Obama’s nominees waited 131.5 days, compared to 18 days for nominees of George W. Bush. (Just to show how slow the process has become, George H.W. Bush's nominees waited just 7.8 days.)
The same pattern held for district court nominees. For Obama, the average number of days was 98.5, compared to 34.9 days for George W. Bush -- about three times as long. The median figures were similar as well -- 91 days for Obama, 18 days for Bush.
In essence, the Committees were much slower under Bush, while here, the slowdown is much more closely correlated with the filibuster.
I know my history on the issue fairly well Whembly. Perhaps it is you who should read more history on the topic, namely the history of how the filibuster has changed over time.
*****
At the end of the day, this rule change on its own will not be a huge change. You can and will still see virtual filibusters of legislation and Supreme Court nominees. All this does is speed up the process of getting agencies leadership, and to fill seats of courts. Mind you, prior to the 70's, with the exception of the FDR court stacking episode, it was S.O.P. for the President to nominate and get his judges appointed once people left. If a whole bunch of people stepped down on one guy's watch, oh well, bad luck for the opposing party.
The whole courts thing becomes a major issue if you're trying to ADD seats to the court, rather than simply replace them, but that's not the case here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/21 21:34:27
And yet I am still left unsatisfied in this thread.
I am only okay with this action if the Filibuster is restored to it s traditional methods of a guy or group of guys standing up and actually talking Ted Cruz style for so long that no one else can take the floor to vote. If that remains, I'm cool.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
I know my history on the issue fairly well Whembly. Perhaps it is you who should read more history on the topic, namely the history of how the filibuster has changed over time.
I'm well versed in the history of this function thankyouverymuch.
I think it's role started going down hill during the aftermath of the SC's ruling on Bush vs Gore.
At the end of the day, this rule change on its own will not be a huge change. You can and will still see virtual filibusters of legislation and Supreme Court nominees. All this does is speed up the process of getting agencies leadership, and to fill seats of courts. Mind you, prior to the 70's, with the exception of the FDR court stacking episode, it was S.O.P. for the President to nominate and get his judges appointed once people left. If a whole bunch of people stepped down on one guy's watch, oh well, bad luck for the opposing party.
The whole courts thing becomes a major issue if you're trying to ADD seats to the court, rather than simply replace them, but that's not the case here.
I really don't have that much of an issue about this per se, my only question is could these rules be changed by simple majority? I thought it required an even higher threshold (2/3rd) to make rule changes midterm.
I mean... couldn't this rule be changed at anytime to overcome a filibuster by simply-majority for anything by whoever has the majority now? That's defacto majority rule...
But, then again... election do have consequences. So, there is that.
Frazzled wrote: Texas was never part of Britain you steenking English. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
I'm pretty sure that by default we claim the whole of Americaland
Russia, Spain, and France would like to have a word with you.
Oh and Texas of course. redcoats in a nice reticle would be an exciting day. Vive Le France Viva Texicas! Muerte De Liverpool!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
DogofWar1 wrote: Honestly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve on the issue.
When you abuse privileges, you will sometimes lose them. The Republicans in the Senate, from day 1 of Obama being in office, have abused the privilege of the filibuster.
The filibuster came into existence as a tool to keep a runaway majority from completely removing the minority from the conversation and abusing their power as the majority. The problem is, at some point somebody realized they could just march a filibuster out whenever, and invented the filibuster that didn't even require anybody to actually, you know, "filibuster," and the result has been that literally everything that goes before the Senate gets held up.
So frankly, the Republicans are getting what they deserve. McConnell whining about it and threatening to end filibusters altogether is short sighted (I doubt they do it since if they lose power suddenly they can't stop ANY legislation or Supreme Court nominations), but even if McConnell did, it's still a stupid response. He led the charge to block as many nominations as possible, abusing his power, and now doesn't want to accept the consequences of that. Too bad, so sad, you brought this upon yourself.
wow... thats the kind of blind partisianism that will destroy america...
they cant filibuster whenever they want to... still needs the house to be roughly evenly split, to force compromise. its quite hypocritical for the democrats to laud the filibuster as a minority, then change the rules, "conveniently" when they are in power, by such a small majority, and conveniently to appoint 3 new uneeded judges, who would give them more #'s there too.
they just set themselves up to be able to ram pretty much whatever they want through, by changing the rules, in a way that THEY THEMSELVES have said is wrong, and unamerican.
who needs checks and balances in the US government, what with the NSA, the TSA, homeland security, the patriot act, and so on and so on....
lets just keep making it easier and easier to cram stuff they havnt read through and force it on the people.
even if it was the best idea ever, its still hyppocritical/flip flopping, and at the most opportune time.
Frazzled wrote: Russia, Spain, and France would like to have a word with you.
Oh and Texas of course. redcoats in a nice reticle would be an exciting day. Vive Le France Viva Texicas! Muerte De Liverpool!
Hey, they gave up without a fight and have no claim
And remember we still have (for the moment at least ) the Scottish Haggis Warriors on our side
Frazzled wrote: Texas was never part of Britain you steenking English. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
I'm pretty sure that by default we claim the whole of Americaland
Typical arrogant Brit nonsense.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
The main reason why a majority of the Senate needs to be able to change the filibuster rule is that otherwise a simple majority of the Senate could effectively amend the Constitution. this rule would function like a constitutional amendment. It would give the Senate the power to change the fundamental law of the nation
You know... even good ol' New York Times had issues with the nuclear option in 2005:
...snippet The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. Republicans and Democrats should tone down their rhetoric, then sit down and negotiate.
To block the nominees, the Democrats’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. Republican leaders now claim that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote. This is rank hypocrisy. When the tables were turned, Republicans filibustered President Bill Clinton’s choice for surgeon general, forcing him to choose another. And Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, who now finds judicial filibusters so offensive, himself joined one against Richard Paez, a Clinton appeals court nominee.
The Senate does much of its work by unanimous consent, which keeps things moving along and prevents ordinary day-to-day business from drowning in procedural votes. But if Republicans change the filibuster rules, Democrats could respond by ignoring the tradition of unanimous consent and making it difficult if not impossible to get anything done. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has warned that “the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.”
There is one way to avert a showdown. The White House should meet with Senate leaders of both parties and come up with a list of nominees who will not be filibustered. This means that Mr. Bush – like Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush before him – would agree to submit nominees from the broad mainstream of legal thought, with a commitment to judging cases, not promoting a political agenda. ...snippet
Again, I can only see that this will only make political battles in DC get even uglier (if that's possible)... What I just highlighted in yellow above... It'd be the Republicans will be doing that now. *shrugs*
Power grabs may work in the short run, but the Democrats may get a taste of their own medicine sooner rather than later.
THAT'S why its shocking Reid would do this now...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/21 22:21:53
