Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Smilodonfatalis]

LOLberals have zero integrity, honnesty or credibility. Zero. Lying is their MO and when lying isn't enough, they move on to cheating or should we say "misusing the rules".

Do you agree, Lonlaugher. Did the democrats of the 108th "misuse the rules"???

As if conservatives were more honest.

 

[Sallow]

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.

One just has to check out their behavior in the House to know that to be the a good window into what they would do with the Senate.

Or just check out what Conservatives do on the local level.

 

[The T]

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.

Then you favour Mob Rule which is what a true Democracy is.

 

[Polk]

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.”

Notice, however, the filibuster has not actually been used in that way. It's typically been used to keep in place existing legal harms to minorities.

 

[tinydancer]

Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal.

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.”

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe.

These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.

That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Oh and

n 2005, Biden Called The Nuclear Option The “Single Most Significant Vote” In His “32 Years In The Senate” And “An Example Of The Arrogance Of Power.”

SEN. JOE BIDEN: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.

It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. …

We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)

Oh and


Biden: “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.” BIDEN: “Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever.

I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option - GOP

 

[ShawnChris13]

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.

Then you must disagree with our country as a Republic. Something about a pledge, some kind of allegiance.....

 

[Polk]

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.

That's an entire separate argument, though one that informs your other argument. There is a difference between saying "the rights of minorities need protecting" and "the filibuster is necessary to protect the rights of minorities". The Framers clearly didn't think so, hence why they did not use the filibuster.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.”

Notice, however, the filibuster has not actually been used in that way. It's typically been used to keep in place existing legal harms to minorities.

That's the biggest load of unsubstantiated nonsense I've ever heard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal.

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.”

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe.

These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.

That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Oh and

n 2005, Biden Called The Nuclear Option The “Single Most Significant Vote” In His “32 Years In The Senate” And “An Example Of The Arrogance Of Power.”

SEN. JOE BIDEN: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.

It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. …

We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)

Oh and


Biden: “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.” BIDEN: “Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever.

I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option - GOP

That's different

That's BEFORE Obama transformed American into a Banana Republic

 

[Polk]

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.”

Notice, however, the filibuster has not actually been used in that way. It's typically been used to keep in place existing legal harms to minorities.

That's the biggest load of unsubstantiated nonsense I've ever heard.

Up until the routine use of the filibuster over the last decade or so, when was the filibuster used? Mostly to oppose civil rights statutes.

 

[tinydancer]

Let's see who else jumped on the bandwagon shall we?

Reid, In 2005: “The Filibuster Is Far From A Procedural Gimmick. It’s Part Of The Fabric Of This Institution … Senators Have Used The Filibuster To Stand Up To Popular Presidents, To Block Legislation, And, Yes, Even, As I’ve Stated, To Stall Executive Nominees.”

SEN. HARRY REID: “The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate.

It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history.

The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.

It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years.

One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters.

Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)

Oh and...

Clinton Expressed Hope That The Senate Would Reject The Nuclear Option And “Remember Our Founders” And “Maintain The Integrity Of The U.S. Senate.” CLINTON: “And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there.

We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

More at link with video:

The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option - GOP

 

[Polk]

Let's who else jumped on the bandwagon shall we?

Reid, In 2005: “The Filibuster Is Far From A Procedural Gimmick. It’s Part Of The Fabric Of This Institution … Senators Have Used The Filibuster To Stand Up To Popular Presidents, To Block Legislation, And, Yes, Even, As I’ve Stated, To Stall Executive Nominees.”

SEN. HARRY REID: “The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate.

It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history.

The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.

It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years.

One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters.

Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)

Oh and...

Clinton Expressed Hope That The Senate Would Reject The Nuclear Option And “Remember Our Founders” And “Maintain The Integrity Of The U.S. Senate.” CLINTON: “And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there.

We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

More at link with video:

The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option - GOP

Not sure why you guys that helps your argument, since you guys were also saying they were wrong at the time.

 

[The T]

Hypocrisy thy name is Liberal.

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.”

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe.

These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.

That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Oh and

n 2005, Biden Called The Nuclear Option The “Single Most Significant Vote” In His “32 Years In The Senate” And “An Example Of The Arrogance Of Power.”

SEN. JOE BIDEN: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.

It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. …

We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)

Oh and


Biden: “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.” BIDEN: “Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever.

I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option - GOP

That's different

That's BEFORE Obama transformed American into a Banana Republic

Hot on the heels of Chavez and like minded despots he worships, emulates. Reid just brought him closer to his dream, and that of his father...

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

That's an entire separate argument, though one that informs your other argument. There is a difference between saying "the rights of minorities need protecting" and "the filibuster is necessary to protect the rights of minorities". The Framers clearly didn't think so, hence why they did not use the filibuster.

Uh yeah, they did. As early as 1801 they did. If you fancy yourself as some history major, try looking up some facts first.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Notice, however, the filibuster has not actually been used in that way. It's typically been used to keep in place existing legal harms to minorities.

That's the biggest load of unsubstantiated nonsense I've ever heard.

Up until the routine use of the filibuster over the last decade or so, when was the filibuster used? Mostly to oppose civil rights statutes.

Say what? Who was it who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. So, that argument is bunk.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Dems are gonna cry like little bitches when the shoe is on the other foot next year.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Dems are gonna cry like little bitches when the shoe is on the other foot next year.

Yup.

 

[The T]

That's the biggest load of unsubstantiated nonsense I've ever heard.

Up until the routine use of the filibuster over the last decade or so, when was the filibuster used? Mostly to oppose civil rights statutes.

Say what? Who was it who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. So, that argument is bunk.

Indeed. And Byrd had help by the likes of Al Gore's daddy.

 

[WelfareQueen]

How is the media gonna handle this when the Dems lose their majority next year? Can you image all the anguish and tears? How did this happen? Those mean evil Republicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wrong. They had the opportunity to do exactly what Reid just did and refrained.
So no moral equivalence this time. Sorry.