Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Edgetho]

Sad that this irresponsible (and certain to backfire) bit of crap is doing what it was intended to:

Taking the focus off the disaster that is Obamacare.

I give it a shelf life of Wednesday of next week.

Tops

obamacare? That's permanent

 

[oreo]

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

Well, they're walking a very fine line here. Because a Republican administration with a majority in the senate will do the same.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Elected representative exercising a majority vote has never been tyranny

That is the precise definition of tyranny.

Majority keeping down a minority.

You got a funny way of looking at things

No it isn't

That's just the minority whining because they lost the popular vote

 

[rightwinger]

Congress, as it is now operating, is no longer capable of doing its job

Ending filibuster is an irritant step towards getting Congress to do its job

 

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats quoting the Constitution with Obama as President...too funny

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Well if that's the case......let's end all filibusters right now

Yeah man , the precedent is there. Ape Lincoln REFUSED to let duly elected Southern congressmen enter the Capitol.

Let history repeat itself.

.

 

[Polk]

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

Elected representative exercising a majority vote has never been tyranny

That is the precise definition of tyranny.

Majority keeping down a minority.

You got a funny way of looking at things

You're both wrong.

Of course an "elected representative exercising a majority vote" can be tyrannical. See: systematic discrimination against African-Americans.

However, there is nothing inherently tyrannical about majority rule. It's all about the majority exercises it's power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How I did you words in your mouth? It's a direct quote from your previous post.

Sure, but had you been paying any attention, I was referring the concept of minority rule, majority rights, which underpins the the usage of a filibuster. For that, the concept was known as early as 1801 and perhaps as early as 1789.

It wasn't until as you said in 1806 when the Senate recodified their rules to allow for the possibility. Look, I know you're trying very hard to catch me in a contradiction, but you won't.

I've already caught you in the contradiction, because it's clear to anyone reading the post that you made that claim. The question is how long you're going to pout instead of just manning up and admitting you made a mistake. My attention isn't the problem. I said the Framers did not use the filibuster, you replied that they did as early as 1801. That may not have been what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

Please.

Let me educate you:

There is a difference between saying "the rights of minorities need protecting" and "the filibuster is necessary to protect the rights of minorities".

That is the part of your post I was addressing. I study senate procedure, Polk. To insist that a filibuster was possible before 1806 is absurd. The aspect of protecting minority rights from majority oppression was known well before the Senate amended it's rules. Now, I suggest you stop looking for faults that don't exist, Polk.

 

[Polk]

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.

Well if that's the case......let's end all filibusters right now

Yeah man , the precedent is there. Ape Lincoln REFUSED to let duly elected Southern congressmen enter the Capitol.

Let history repeat itself.

.

Source on the Lincoln claim?

 

[Polk]

Sure, but had you been paying any attention, I was referring the concept of minority rule, majority rights, which underpins the the usage of a filibuster. For that, the concept was known as early as 1801 and perhaps as early as 1789.

It wasn't until as you said in 1806 when the Senate recodified their rules to allow for the possibility. Look, I know you're trying very hard to catch me in a contradiction, but you won't.

I've already caught you in the contradiction, because it's clear to anyone reading the post that you made that claim. The question is how long you're going to pout instead of just manning up and admitting you made a mistake. My attention isn't the problem. I said the Framers did not use the filibuster, you replied that they did as early as 1801. That may not have been what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

Please.

Let me educate you:

There is a difference between saying "the rights of minorities need protecting" and "the filibuster is necessary to protect the rights of minorities".

That is the part of your post I was addressing. I study senate procedure, Polk. To insist that a filibuster was possible before 1806 is absurd. The aspect of protecting minority rights from majority oppression was known well before the Senate amended it's rules. Now, I suggest you stop looking for faults that don't exist, Polk.

Now you're just lying. The part of my post that you left out stated they did not use the filibuster. It's the very last thing in the post. Your post begins with "Uh yeah, they did."

You also don't understand Senate procedure. Before 1806, a member could call a question to vote. Only a simple majority was required to do so. It is impossible to filibuster in a legislative body were that motion exists. You stand up to start running your mouth and the chair just calls a vote on the motion to proceed.

 

[Edgetho]

I've already caught you in the contradiction, because it's clear to anyone reading the post that you made that claim. The question is how long you're going to pout instead of just manning up and admitting you made a mistake. My attention isn't the problem. I said the Framers did not use the filibuster, you replied that they did as early as 1801. That may not have been what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

Please.

Let me educate you:

There is a difference between saying "the rights of minorities need protecting" and "the filibuster is necessary to protect the rights of minorities".

That is the part of your post I was addressing. I study senate procedure, Polk. To insist that a filibuster was possible before 1806 is absurd. The aspect of protecting minority rights from majority oppression was known well before the Senate amended it's rules. Now, I suggest you stop looking for faults that don't exist, Polk.

Now you're just lying. The part of my post that you left out stated they did not use the filibuster. It's the very last thing in the post. Your post begins with "Uh yeah, they did."

You also don't understand Senate procedure. Before 1806, a member could call a question to vote. Only a simple majority was required to do so. It is impossible to filibuster in a legislative body were that motion exists. You stand up to start running your mouth and the chair just calls a vote on the motion to proceed.

Is this what's known as a parallel argument?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Not entirely accurate.

Obama Judicial Confirmation Statistics as of 11/12/2013 | judicialnominations.org

 

[Black_Label]

Will democrats still like this next year when there is a republican majority?

Trick question, the democrats are going to win back the house and keep the senate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've already caught you in the contradiction, because it's clear to anyone reading the post that you made that claim. The question is how long you're going to pout instead of just manning up and admitting you made a mistake. My attention isn't the problem. I said the Framers did not use the filibuster, you replied that they did as early as 1801. That may not have been what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

Please.

Let me educate you:

There is a difference between saying "the rights of minorities need protecting" and "the filibuster is necessary to protect the rights of minorities".

That is the part of your post I was addressing. I study senate procedure, Polk. To insist that a filibuster was possible before 1806 is absurd. The aspect of protecting minority rights from majority oppression was known well before the Senate amended it's rules. Now, I suggest you stop looking for faults that don't exist, Polk.

Now you're just lying. The part of my post that you left out stated they did not use the filibuster. It's the very last thing in the post. Your post begins with "Uh yeah, they did."

You also don't understand Senate procedure. Before 1806, a member could call a question to vote. Only a simple majority was required to do so. It is impossible to filibuster in a legislative body were that motion exists. You stand up to start running your mouth and the chair just calls a vote on the motion to proceed.

Wow seriously? Now you call me a liar? Ad hominem signals the death of any argument. You assumed to know what was going through my mind when I replied to your post.

When I quoted Jefferson, I was referring to majority rule minority rights. Now, when I caught that particular section of your post, I cited the year which Jefferson made that quote, in the year 1801. As I have proven, the concept of a filibuster was known (perhaps not by that name) and theorized upon after Aaron Burr removed a rule in the the Senate which allowed the Senate to "move to the previous question" in 1789. 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. That paved the road for the use of what we now know as a filibuster. In 1806 the Senate agreed with Burr and recodified the rules, making it possible for the Senators to use a filibuster. As we now know, the first filibuster was used in 1837.

Be quiet you unnatural noise!

 

[Wolfsister77]

Even if the Republicans won majority in the Senate, there is still a Democratic President who can veto. A party would have to win all three branches to really change anything and if they did, they would be responsible for what happened and the people can decide if they want them in power again at the next election.

 

[Article 15]

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 at this very moment. Mark my words. You will regret this day down the road.

^This obviously misinformed moron is so against this move by the Senate Democrats that he is peeing himself in anticipation of the GOP getting their turn.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Did anyone ever stop and think;

Maybe the rules were meant to bog the gov down on purpose?


nah

"think" is alien to most, we all just want our

party over country, keep at it boys

 

[The T]

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

Elected representative exercising a majority vote has never been tyranny

That is the precise definition of tyranny.

Majority keeping down a minority.

You got a funny way of looking at things

He knows it. He's being obtuse. But then he supports tyranny...as he is living in it.

 

[The T]

Congress, as it is now operating, is no longer capable of doing its job

Ending filibuster is an irritant step towards getting Congress to do its job

NO you mean Congress ramming home Statism, and tyranny. And don't deny it.

 

[g5000]

So when 51 percent elect a President, that's a tyranny, eh?

When 51 percent confirm a judge, that's a tyranny, eh?

Whatta pack of loons!