Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[TemplarKormac]

Alright, democrats. You asked for this one. Now that you have effectively ended the filibuster in the Senate, you have opened yourselves up to the same abuses of power you are now exercising now. Mark my words. You will regret this day down the road.

I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place.

I don't believe you know what the filibuster was intended to do. Should your party ever be rendered in the majority, you'll regret it. Now the opposing party will be able to trample all over you and do basically whatever they please.

 

[Polk]

Alright, democrats. You asked for this one. Now that you have effectively ended the filibuster in the Senate, you have opened yourselves up to the same abuses of power you are now exercising now. Mark my words. You will regret this day down the road.

I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place.

No, just tyranny. Got it.

Your definition of tyranny is anything you dislike. Leave the conversation to the adults.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alright, democrats. You asked for this one. Now that you have effectively ended the filibuster in the Senate, you have opened yourselves up to the same abuses of power you are now exercising now. Mark my words. You will regret this day down the road.

I'll get you, my pretty....

Ooooh, sooo scared! Quiet you.

 

[Sallow]

More BS from the King of Fools. At a time when Obama needs to have both sides work towards budget, he alienates them.

Good luck getting any cooperation now. Time to shut her down boys.

-Geaux

Yeah..the sequester and last government shutdown put on display that Republicans were just raring to compromise.

That and when they declined dinner and social invites.

Yep..friendly bunch of friendly republicans, that!

 

[Trajan]

and just so we are clear;

the DC circuit is NOT overworked/overbooked OR under staffed, its a Pack job plain and simple. Almost like FDR's minus the age limits.....you dems sure must be proud.


Oh and, when Grassely ( chair of the senate judiciary comm.) was running the show when the GOP had the senate, he would not add another justice then either, it was not required to get the work done or necessary...

But ole Harry? so much for the deal they made 6 months ago, I said then the gop took the pipe on that deal as Harry was going to wind up doing this anyway,...damn I should bookmarked that..

and lets face it, the dems need the distraction.


So, wait, we'll see how they feel when the cons pack a circuit with judges unfriendly to roe vs. wade...then you'll hear the slobbering hypocritical squealing as the same bozos defending this now, tell you then ; "but this is different"

.

Yeah. The party which rail against 'activist' judges when out of power, will, when in power, supports 'activist' judges. Is anyone surprised?

you're such a blithering idiot...really

you just changed the rules hello? you going to whine next time the gop doesn't roll over? bitch that "they don't compromise"? Jesus talk about having your sanctimonious head up your arse.

here ya go, suck on this blast from the past-

Harry Reid then: “Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power … They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.” (floor speech, May 18, 2005)

Harry Reid now: "This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work – regardless of who’s in the White House or who controls the Senate. To remain relevant and effective as an institution, the Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of a modern era.”

Harry Reid, later: The nuclear option, “simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate.” (from the book The Good Fight: Hard Lessons from Searchlight to Washington, 2008)

Harry Reid now: “It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.”


BUT But you don't understand.....its its ...different now!! hacks....

 

[Moneyman]

I don't want to hear any liberals complain when the GOP takes control of the Senate and they repeal OC with 51 votes. They opened it up to themselves.

 

[Polk]

Alright, democrats. You asked for this one. Now that you have effectively ended the filibuster in the Senate, you have opened yourselves up to the same abuses of power you are now exercising now. Mark my words. You will regret this day down the road.

I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place.

I don't believe you know what the filibuster was intended to do. Should your party ever be rendered in the majority, you'll regret it. Now the opposing party will be able to trample all over you and do basically whatever they please.

I know exactly what the filibuster was intended to do: promote the interests of dedicated legislative minorities. I know my preferred candidates will not win every election. My position is not based on short-term considerations.

 

[Contumacious]

Republicans used to be useless, that was fine, now they are hopeless. l]

They will soon merge with the democrats and things will be forever peachy.

One political party under god indivisible with welfare and insurance for all

.

 

[blackhawk]

Dems are going to love the new-fangled Republican rules when they win back the House.

Just think..Senate/House/Presidency after 2014.

No minority opposition.

It's going to be like Texas for the whole nation!

So basically you want one party rule the majority to have all the power and say and the minority none I seem to recall some brave men declaring independence and 13 colonies fighting a war to get away from that very thing.

Tell it to the voters

Why would you want minority rule?

I didn't say I did I said I don't want the minority party to have no say or power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place.

No, just tyranny. Got it.

Your definition of tyranny is anything you dislike. Leave the conversation to the adults.

Look who's talking, Polk. "I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place." Your ignorance of the framers intentions is astounding.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

-President Thomas Jefferson

 

[rightwinger]

I don't want to hear any liberals complain when the GOP takes control of the Senate and they repeal OC with 51 votes. They opened it up to themselves.

Take the House and Senate, win the White House and win a Supreme Court Decision and then you can repeal Obamacare


That is what Democrats had to do

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You are correct, it was part of the senate rules, in the end none of it really matters, the commies will do what they will do regardless of what they said when republicans were considering a similar thing. Hypocrites will be hypocrites, there should be a law.

That's where you get into something that's a legal question: can the Senate voluntary surrender their power to enforce their own rules (even temporarily)? I think the correct answer to that question is no.

Attacking the Democrats as "commies" for taking this action, however, it pretty nonsensical in light of Republican threats to do the same thing (which they only backed down from after the Democrats basically gave them everything they wanted).

I agree with you one the rules. But who has standing to challenge it? I mean the commies have been doing all kinds of shit the courts have declared unconstitutional yet nothing is undone. The commies ignore the rules, the laws and the courts and in the current climate nothing can be done about it.

You call them democrats, I call them commiecrats, commies for short may be some what nonsensical, but in my opinion in light of their dear leader, appropriate.

 

[Polk]

I don't want to hear any liberals complain when the GOP takes control of the Senate and they repeal OC with 51 votes. They opened it up to themselves.

They would have done that anyway.

 

[The T]

I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place.

No, just tyranny. Got it.

Your definition of tyranny is anything you dislike. Leave the conversation to the adults.

You have no idea of history or the Founders college boy. It is YOU that will shut up son.

 

[Polk]

No, just tyranny. Got it.

Your definition of tyranny is anything you dislike. Leave the conversation to the adults.

Look who's talking, Polk. "I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place." Your ignorance of the framers intentions is astounding.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

-President Thomas Jefferson

Except that the Framers didn't create the filibuster. The first filibuster was not until 1837.

 

[Geaux4it]

After today's bullchitit was time to load the Stars & Bars SIG again.

Smoke em of you got em

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place.

I don't believe you know what the filibuster was intended to do. Should your party ever be rendered in the majority, you'll regret it. Now the opposing party will be able to trample all over you and do basically whatever they please.

I know exactly what the filibuster was intended to do: promote the interests of dedicated legislative minorities. I know my preferred candidates will not win every election. My position is not based on short-term considerations.

Actually, a filibuster was designed to preserve minority rights as guaranteed under the law. James Madison in Federalist No.10 made it clear that (to paraphrase) "the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.”

 

[Polk]

You are correct, it was part of the senate rules, in the end none of it really matters, the commies will do what they will do regardless of what they said when republicans were considering a similar thing. Hypocrites will be hypocrites, there should be a law.

That's where you get into something that's a legal question: can the Senate voluntary surrender their power to enforce their own rules (even temporarily)? I think the correct answer to that question is no.

Attacking the Democrats as "commies" for taking this action, however, it pretty nonsensical in light of Republican threats to do the same thing (which they only backed down from after the Democrats basically gave them everything they wanted).

I agree with you one the rules. But who has standing to challenge it? I mean the commies have been doing all kinds of shit the courts have declared unconstitutional yet nothing is undone. The commies ignore the rules, the laws and the courts and in the current climate nothing can be done about it.

You call them democrats, I call them commiecrats, commies for short may be some what nonsensical, but in my opinion in light of their dear leader, appropriate.

Even if someone had standing to challenge it, the courts would not strike it down under political question doctrine.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

So dimocraps can stack Federal Courts with left wing Judges....

Sen. Harry Reid Gets Ready to Go Nuclear - NationalJournal.com

I was going to say unbelievable, but you know who we're talking about here.

Turnabout's fair play, boys

I think they should do away with the filibuster altogether.

if the minority party doesn't like it, they should try to win an election.

I favor majority rules.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your definition of tyranny is anything you dislike. Leave the conversation to the adults.

Look who's talking, Polk. "I don't believe the filibuster should exist in the first place." Your ignorance of the framers intentions is astounding.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

-President Thomas Jefferson

Except that the Framers didn't create the filibuster. The first filibuster was not until 1837.

You fail to realize something, the concept of protecting the minority was a concept known to all of the framers before that time. Thomas Jefferson knew about it, James Madison knew about it. The framers understood the difficult relationship between majority rule and minority rights. One problem the framers prepared for is that minorities can be exploited by the majority. In response to this difficulty, the framers designed a government that restricted the majority's ability to interfere with or violate the rights of the minority. This included guaranteed rights and protections granted to all peoples which cannot be taken away no matter what the opinion of the majority might be. The Amendments to the US Constitution contain many or the principles upon which majority rule must function and the rules which must be observed in order to preserve and respect minority rights.