Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[TakeAStepBack]

My bad, it's from the "progressive non-partisan" The Century Foundation "think tank".

 

[rightwinger]

This graph proves that more was done under Bush in 2008 than under Obama.

Republicans were in the minority in 2008. They were the ones filibustering

 

[Geaux4it]

Just one step closer to the civil war. Cue the filmclip of Neville Chamberlain holding a piece of white paper in his right hand pivoting 45 degrees to each side so all could see "Peace in our time". "Peace in our time" Harry Reid obviously isn't concerned about getting a suppository shaped bill allowing Drilling In Anwar or making abortion illegal wrapped in razor wire shoved up his ass sometime in the future when the White House and the Senate changes hands. Mebbe Comrade Commisar Barack told Reid that he was going to make the House and Senate obsolete by 2016 and he wasn't going anywhere as president. Well, maybe if Iran wanted to proclaim Barack the Mahdi, he might consider a change.

Any "civil war" will lead to the uttering crushing of the "rebels" unto the third generation.

There will be no survivors.

I hope we get a chance to find out. I'm done laying down to these treason acts. We have taken way more chit than our founders would of ever dreamed.

-Geaux

 

[mamooth]

Payback's a motherfucker. You WILL see

So what do you conservatives plan to do, cry even louder? Ooh, scary.

Promising to behave badly isn't much of a threat when you already behave like blubbering bitches 100% of the time. It's not possible for you Republicans to behave more reprehensibly than you already do, hence your threats are toothless. You literally can't act any worse than you already do.

Worst case for the Democrats, the Republicans take the senate in 2014. And in such a case, the filibuster elimination would still be meaningless, since Republicans couldn't override a presidential veto. And then in 2016, there's a Democratic wave taking everything back.

 

[Chris]

Praise Jesus!

 

[OKTexas]

Just one step closer to the civil war. Cue the filmclip of Neville Chamberlain holding a piece of white paper in his right hand pivoting 45 degrees to each side so all could see "Peace in our time". "Peace in our time" Harry Reid obviously isn't concerned about getting a suppository shaped bill allowing Drilling In Anwar or making abortion illegal wrapped in razor wire shoved up his ass sometime in the future when the White House and the Senate changes hands. Mebbe Comrade Commisar Barack told Reid that he was going to make the House and Senate obsolete by 2016 and he wasn't going anywhere as president. Well, maybe if Iran wanted to proclaim Barack the Mahdi, he might consider a change.

Any "civil war" will lead to the uttering crushing of the "rebels" unto the third generation.

There will be no survivors.

Echos of pure desperation from a senile old fool. You really should get some professional help, the meds your on don't seem to be doing it.

 

[ShawnChris13]

This is the first step in transitioning from a Republic to a Democracy. Majority rule is going to make a lot of changes in the next few years. Remember this day, when the media was more worried about an assassination 50 years ago than the assassination of the voice of the minority.

Have they abused the privilege? Yes. A better way could have been found.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Time to do this in order to pass bills.

 

[Mustang]

Anyone who says "Cruz did not engage in a filibuster" is malignantly motivated or mentally feeble or both.

Cruz stood on the floor and talked for a long time, but he technically did not engage in a filibuster.

Technically? Really. It was called a filibuster, Rush called it such and praised it, as did most far right Insannitty types on the radio.

Conservative talk radio hosts wouldn't (and probably couldn't) tell the truth even if they knew what it was, and I think they often don't know the difference between what's true and what's fiction. They're just in the habit of throwing out the red meat because they know that's what their listeners want to hear. Besides, they called it a filibuster because it sounded a damn sight sexier and more official (not to mention easier to explain) than somehow trying to explain to their audience that Cruz was just posturing in order to raise his profile.

 

[Contumacious]

This graph proves that more was done under Bush in 2008 than under Obama.

Republicans were in the minority in 2008. They were the ones filibustering

Relax democrats , republicans is all the same. They know that majority of Republicans are member of the surrender caucus so they are not opposition anyways.

Hopefully they will finally declare a merger.

Libertarians

Vs

Socialists

.

 

[Trajan]

annnnnd...

The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.


U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Senate Legislative Process

 

[Polk]

Evidently you have never actually read the Constitution, because you seem to have no freaking idea what your talking about. If you can't figure out why I say that all by your little self, ask and I'll explain it to you. Although I seriously doubt your smart enough to do either.

You realize that if the Framers wanted to require a supermajority for appointments, they could have just written that in the Constitution, right? It's not like the idea of supermajority requirements were foreign to them (see: amendments, treaties).

Well you get a star for actually being familiar with the constitution, now how about you explaining that each house of congress is charged by the constitution for the establishment of their respective rules and last I read the senate rules, changes were to be made at the beginning of each congress and not midterm. But when do the commies ever really care about rules, or laws for that matter, unless they can be twisted to their advantage.

The Constitution only states that the chambers set the rules for their own proceedings. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the chamber to keep those rules for the entirety of a session.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Time to do this in order to pass bills.

Yes, the senate now has the ability to pass more Obamacare bills. Which should really enhance their standing in the public eye.

 

[Polk]

Anyone who says "Cruz did not engage in a filibuster" is malignantly motivated or mentally feeble or both.

Cruz stood on the floor and talked for a long time, but he technically did not engage in a filibuster.

Technically? Really. It was called a filibuster, Rush called it such and praised it, as did most far right Insannitty types on the radio.

The media called it a filibuster as shorthand for "someone talks for a very long time".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anyone who says "Cruz did not engage in a filibuster" is malignantly motivated or mentally feeble or both.

Cruz stood on the floor and talked for a long time, but he technically did not engage in a filibuster.

Technically? Really. It was called a filibuster, Rush called it such and praised it, as did most far right Insannitty types on the radio.

And yet, Fake the Feeble, it wasnt a fillibuster.

 

[Polk]

I have always thought the way filibustering was done the last ten years was certainly unethical if not illegal.

Good for Reid, and good for the Pubs when we take back the Senate.

It was neither unethical nor illegal. Ill-considered perhaps, but that's a different question.

 

[rightwinger]

This graph proves that more was done under Bush in 2008 than under Obama.

Republicans were in the minority in 2008. They were the ones filibustering

But I do thank you for pointing out the record number of Filibusters by Republicans in Congress in 2007-2008. It is a good response to all those the blame the "Democrat Congress" for the economic collapse that year. Doesn't look like the Democrats passed many bills did they?
Wonder why?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Time to do the same thing with legislative bills. A pass should be a pass....

 

[Polk]

Cruz stood on the floor and talked for a long time, but he technically did not engage in a filibuster.

Technically? Really. It was called a filibuster, Rush called it such and praised it, as did most far right Insannitty types on the radio.

And yet, Fake the Feeble, it wasnt a fillibuster.

Indeed.

This article gives a decent take:

Is this a real filibuster or not? - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com

But since I assume we're talking about the filibuster as actually being able to stop movement:

Sure sounds like a filibuster — but for one problem: Cruz is utterly powerless meet his end-goal of stopping the Senate from voting on the government funding bill.

...

Whereas most filibusters are used to disrupt Senate procedure and block lawmakers form advancing legislation, Cruz won’t have that ability. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has already scheduled a vote on the continuing resolution for Wednesday early afternoon, at which time Cruz will be booted from the floor.

 

[Jarhead]

I have always thought the way filibustering was done the last ten years was certainly unethical if not illegal.

Good for Reid, and good for the Pubs when we take back the Senate.

your lack of knowledge as it pertains to the make-up of our government and why the rules are as they are (were) is uncanny....seeing as you spew crap on this board acting as if you know what you are talking about.

Filibustering is essential. Obama is wrong. It is exactly what the founders wanted.

Anyone who likes what Reid has done is only interested in getting what they want...not necessarily what is best for the country.

Well, Obama said it.....he finally told the truth...he is fundamentally changing America.

Oh...BTW.....when he campaigned? He NEVER said he was going to fundamentally change America. He said he was going to turn Washington into a bi partisan environment.

Not until you sheep voted for him did he say "now I will fundamentally change America"

And he has.

Sad.