Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules
What a relief.
Obama applaudes filibuster changes
Well past-due.
Wasn't Harry against the nuclear option before he was for it?
The Nuclear option was first considered during the Bush years with the Republican Majority threatening to use it.
Tell Me again what was the reason the Democrats and liberals fought so hard to keep this from happening when the GOP was in charge of the Senate?And that would be different - how, Darkwind?
Dear Obama:
The founders built this country on the aspect of equality, namely equal rights for the majority AND minority. For a liberal like you to sit there and defend equal rights under the law, then turn around and allow this egregious breach of power is hypocritical. So, when your party ever finds itself in the minority in the Senate remember this day well.
U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules
What a relief.
Obama applaudes filibuster changes
Well past-due.
Wasn't Harry against the nuclear option before he was for it?
The Nuclear option was first considered during the Bush years with the Republican Majority threatening to use it.
When Obama tried to turn the US into Czarist Russia in his first two years, who could blame them for wanting to filibuster his nominees? All those Czars. Something had to be done.
Proving you know squat.
Czars .......
Aaand, what facts did you refute my argument with just now?
Beginning in 2009, Obama has appointed a total of 38 Executive Branch Czars, which is higher than Bush's 33. Five out of the 38 appointees Obama made were ever confirmed by the Senate.
Tell Me again what was the reason the Democrats and liberals fought so hard to keep this from happening when the GOP was in charge of the Senate?And that would be different - how, Darkwind?
Link?
The accusations took place against the backdrop of a looming showdown over Senate rules governing the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans are threatening to change Senate procedures to end the power of the Democratic minority to block confirmation by exploiting the requirement of 60 votes to end debate, arguing that Democrats have already in effect changed the rules by blocking 10 of Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, praised Mr. Bush's support for "an independent judiciary," then called on him to ask Senate Republicans to drop their threats to change the rules.
"The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government," Mr. Reid said.
The founders put nothing about filibuster in the constitution. It s a peculiar practice of the Senate and it has had its day
Indeed.
And I hope you whiny liberals will remember that when, after 2014, the rules change bites you in the ass.
And it will.
Fine....let's go there
I like the Democrats chances to hold the Senate for the next generation. Let's end filibuster across the board
Agree?
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.
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.
Proving you know squat.
Czars .......
Aaand, what facts did you refute my argument with just now?
Beginning in 2009, Obama has appointed a total of 38 Executive Branch Czars, which is higher than Bush's 33. Five out of the 38 appointees Obama made were ever confirmed by the Senate.
Czars in American politic has nothing to do with Czarist Russia . None, zip nada.....many of the appointees don't require Senate confirmation. The term itself in American politics is a media creation. Citing President Obama's appointments as proof that he is turning us into that is beyond reasonable. Something you get from the echo-chamber.
As the applause dies down and the card game is resumed, the animals creep away from the window. However, they hurry back when they hear a furious argument break out. The argument is because Mr. Pilkington and Napoleon have both played an Ace of Spades at the same time. But as the animals look from Napoleon to Pilkington, from man to pig and from pig back to man, they find that they are unable to tell the difference.
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.
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.
You realize that post contains nothing that undermines my argument, right?
