Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[TemplarKormac]

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 simply not accurate. In fact, Senate rules were structured in such a way that it would not have been possible to filibuster until 1806.

Huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Nuclear option was first considered during the Bush years with the Republican Majority threatening to use it.

Are you lying or just stupid?

I'm going with both.

Actually you are both because Nyvin is right on this.

 

[kwc57]

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?

He went along with McCain thinking that the obstruction could be defused with the "moderates" in the GOP like McCain, Collins, and Kirk. McCain was wrong, or duped him, one of the two, and so Reid basically said "to hell with it" and Nuked the filibuster.

So he was against it before he was for it?

 

[Polk]

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?

I don't. The fact that you're proclaiming it doesn't undermine your argument means I did in fact undermine it.

Sit down.

It doesn't at all. My argument was that the filibusters have historically been used to harm minorities. Your response to that was to... state an example of where they did exactly the thing I just said they did.

 

[boilermaker55]

 

[Polk]

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 simply not accurate. In fact, Senate rules were structured in such a way that it would not have been possible to filibuster until 1806.

Huh?

You claimed the filibuster started in 1801. Under Senate rules before 1806, a member could call a question to a floor vote with a simple majority.

 

[The T]

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?

So YOU agree that YOU enjoy, and even SUPPORT tyranny, correct sewerboy?

 

[kwc57]

And that would be different - how, Darkwind?

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?

Link?

Pull your head out of your ass and back into reality and you'll realize that asking for a link to something commonly known is stoopid even for you.

 

[Amelia]

Just wait until you have courts full of people who didn't have to pass any moderate muster

Calling the Republican senate "moderate"? Most people would refer to it as the "kook right fringe cult" muster.

Your plot to pack the courts with kook right fringe candidates has failed. You took it too far, and paid the price. Learn a lesson from it, to behave in a less extreme fashion.

Baloney.

Republicans have approved of 99% of Obama's nominations. No packing has taken place yet.

But now Democrats have opened the door to it. Partisan packing on the left now. Partisan packing on the right in the future.

Democrats are the ones circling the drain because of their extreme actions. And now they add one more to the list because they haven't learned their lessons. One more desperate grab at power on their walk of shame.

 

[g5000]

2005:

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.

Everybody who was for it is against it. Everybody who was against it is for it.


Hmmmm...what does all this remind you of?

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.

 

[kwc57]

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?

When Obama was a senator he was against it. He said it was a power grab but I guess since he's the one grabbing the power it's OK

Just like when a 9 trillion debt ceiling was unpatriotic when he wasn't president but a 17 trillion one is OK as long as he's doing the spending.

He's a hypocrite. Imagine that.

And a known and documented liar.

 

[Amelia]

And now that Democrats have chosen the nuclear option to end filibusters on nominations, they will have no grounds to object if Republicans choose the nuclear option to further curb filibusters when Republicans regain the senate now that Americans are becoming aware of the shocking breadth of Democrat malfeasance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's simply not accurate. In fact, Senate rules were structured in such a way that it would not have been possible to filibuster until 1806.

Huh?

You claimed the filibuster started in 1801. Under Senate rules before 1806, a member could call a question to a floor vote with a simple majority.

Actually, I never said that. The concept was known, but not implemented. I said 1801 because of that quote by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address in 1801. Let's add reading comprehension to the list.

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question", ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[2] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The History of the Filibuster | Brookings Institution
Senate Procedure and Practice - Martin B. Gold - Google Books

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Actually, let's save some money and abolish Congress altogether.

The Prez has so much power nowadays to run the country by simply claiming that an action is necessary for "national security".

.

 

[The T]

Just wait until you have courts full of people who didn't have to pass any moderate muster

Calling the Republican senate "moderate"? Most people would refer to it as the "kook right fringe cult" muster.

Your plot to pack the courts with kook right fringe candidates has failed. You took it too far, and paid the price. Learn a lesson from it, to behave in a less extreme fashion.

Baloney.

Republicans have approved of 99% of Obama's nominations. No packing has taken place yet.

But now Democrats have opened the door to it. Partisan packing on the left now. Partisan packing on the right in the future.

Democrats are the ones circling the drain because of their extreme actions. And now they add one more to the list because they haven't learned their lessons. One more desperate grab at power on their walk of shame.

And you watch? The Republicans will be blamed for the action...and Obama is giddy as a schoolboy about it. Now he can stack the court to his whim and come closer to destroying the country his father hated and realizing hid father's dream of bringing us down. Harry Reid and the Dems are complicit in it.

 

[GHook93]

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

While I applaud this move (it will come in handy when the GOP take the senate in 2014), I find it ironic that these same Democrats were the one cheering on the cowardly Wisconsin Democratic legislators that fled the state instead of voting on and losing on major WI legislation! That was an unlaw cowards move that Democrats cheered on.

 

[g5000]

And now that Democrats have chosen the nuclear option to end filibusters on nominations, they will have no grounds to object if Republicans choose the nuclear option to further curb filibusters when Republicans regain the senate now that Americans are becoming aware of the shocking breadth of Democrat malfeasance.

Indeed. And I have no doubt the GOP will fail to repeal this rule change when that time comes.

Oink!

Two legs good, four legs bad.

 

[The T]

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?

Actually, let's save some money and abolish Congress altogether.

The Prez has so much power nowadays to run the country by simply claiming that an action is necessary for "national security".
.

Obama would love nothing better than to declare himself King/Dictator. Reid just helped him more.

 

[Amelia]

Just wait until you have courts full of people who didn't have to pass any moderate muster

Calling the Republican senate "moderate"? Most people would refer to it as the "kook right fringe cult" muster.

....

There are at least 5 moderate members of the Senate.

There was no call to end the filibuster. No log jam of nominees. This was a move of sheer desperation by a party which is latching onto shiny things to try to make people pay attention to something other than how profoundly the Democrats have betrayed democratic principles.

Ain't gonna work.

 

[Polk]

Huh?

You claimed the filibuster started in 1801. Under Senate rules before 1806, a member could call a question to a floor vote with a simple majority.

Actually, I never said that. The concept was known, but not implemented. I said 1801 because of that quote by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address in 1801. Let's add reading comprehension to the list.

You didn't say it was "known, but not implemented". You directly stated they used it "as early as 1801".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/325610-reid-changing-filibuster-rules-10.html#post8184497

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

"They did" was in reference to the last sentence of my previous post:

"The Framers clearly didn't think so, hence why they did not use the filibuster."

Edit: Although I do enjoy that you're now backpedaling so quickly that you're now that you're going back and editing posts to add evidence against your own previous claim.