Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Stephanie]

You Democrats don't mind that your masters lie

No wonder they feel they can do any damn they want with loyal subjects such as you in their voting base


[ame=http://youtu.be/TyAtvc0eCmU]Obama Nuclear Option Not What Founders Had In Mind, Will Poison Washington - YouTube[/ame]

They'll do ANYTHING for the win folks...snakes in the grass..

 

[velvtacheeze]

The GOP only has itself to blame.

And what is it about Majority Rule in the Senate that gets the GOP so angry?

Demographics not going your way? Awww. Boo hoo.

 

[g5000]

I say we return to the days when a filibuster was a filibuster. You have to stand on the floor and make a speech until you drop.

This literally phoning in a filibuster, anonymously, is the epitome of cowardice and laziness.

 

[Article 15]

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!

Don't mind Tommy Toughpants - he's ten years deep in a drunken stupor.

 

[The T]

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.

I don't think so. The Obama administration has burned too many members of the press. Democrats did themselves no favors today. I think they're going to come out of this smelling really bad.

And if Obama uses this as an excuse to choose truly objectionable judges, senators will have to take the case to the media. More bad news for the imperial president. The public is waking up. We still have pride in what we were taught was the right way in our early civics classes. The separation of powers and the filibuster are proud traditions.

Democrats have just pummeled Jimmy Stewart about the head. The public won't like that.

While I certainly understand your argument, and it has much merit, and I appreciate the optimism? I have to tell you that knowing history, Obama's history, Progressives (Communists), and their aim from 100 years ago? They won't stop...whether the people get angry or not. And what we see happening is by design. They are mere feet from their goal to take this Republic out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you would ever read the Federalist papers, you'd know how wrong you are, Polk:

"If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated."

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.22, 1787

"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."

James Madison, Federalist No.58, 1788

"No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. ... The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided."

-Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual of Parliamentary procedure, 1801

In Federalist 22, Hamilton was arguing that in the requirement for a supermajority it allows a minority to delay legislation improperly and force unpopular compromises. In Federalist 58, Madison argues that the supemajority rule empowers the minority, and therefore could lead to the enforcement of unfair compromises. Jefferson first argues in his manual of Parliamentary procedure that no senator can speak for longer than necessary. Later, he argues that simple majority rule (lex majoris partis) is the basic guiding principle for legislative votes. While these were arguments against the filibuster, the concept was indeed known of and debated upon as early as 1787.

Polk, you aren't even in my league.

 

[Article 15]

I say we return to the days when a filibuster was a filibuster. You have to stand on the floor and make a speech until you drop.

This literally phoning in a filibuster, anonymously, is the epitome of cowardice and laziness.

It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer discovered he could get away with a bunch of shit by challenging anyone in his way to a duel - because they would back off and let him have his way. That is until someone accepted - then he shit himself.

I would prefer the old way too.

But something had to be done.

 

[Article 15]

If you would ever read the Federalist papers, you'd know how wrong you are, Polk:

Polk has forgotten more about US History than you will ever know, fat basement dwelling loser.

 

[Stephanie]

The GOP only has itself to blame.

And what is it about Majority Rule in the Senate that gets the GOP so angry?

Demographics not going your way? Awww. Boo hoo.

go bow to your shrine of your masters, Democrats and Government

 

[The T]

If you would ever read the Federalist papers, you'd know how wrong you are, Polk:

"If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated."

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.22, 1787

"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."

James Madison, Federalist No.58, 1788

In Federalist 22, Hamilton was arguing that in the requirement for a supermajority it allows a minority to delay legislation improperly and force unpopular compromises. In Federalist 58, Madison argues that the supemajority rule empowers the minority, and therefore could lead to the enforcement of unfair compromises. While these were arguments against the filibuster, the concept was indeed known of and debated upon as early as 1787.

Polk, you aren't even in my league.

Cue up "That isn't the Constitution" in 5, 4, 3, 2.....1

Nevermind the Federalist Papers were arguments that won adoption OF the Constitution over the Articles Of Confederation. College boy will go to great lengths to talk circles around you to make you look like a chump, and on purpose. Watch for it.

 

[Stephanie]

ANYTHING for them to WIN people

SNAKES is what they are

[ame=http://youtu.be/TyAtvc0eCmU]Obama Nuclear Option Not What Founders Had In Mind, Will Poison Washington - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you would ever read the Federalist papers, you'd know how wrong you are, Polk:

Polk has forgotten more about US History than you will ever know, fat basement dwelling loser.

LOL. Do you have anything better to do than play the role of a cheerleader?

 

[Trajan]

obama 2005-

“I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness,” “I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.”

“The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster – if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,”



Obama 2013

“The gears of government have to work and the step that a majority of senators took today I think will help make those gears work just a little bit better,” he said in a statement from the White House briefing room.

Senate guts filibuster power | TheHill

 

[Two Thumbs]

The GOP only has itself to blame.

And what is it about Majority Rule in the Senate that gets the GOP so angry?

Demographics not going your way? Awww. Boo hoo.

see here's the perfect dem

Not a single free thought was thunk.

Reids for it?!?!?!?! Then that's all Iz needz to know!!

 

[The T]

obama 2005-

“I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness,” “I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.”

“The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster – if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,”



Obama 2013

“The gears of government have to work and the step that a majority of senators took today I think will help make those gears work just a little bit better,” he said in a statement from the White House briefing room.

Senate guts filibuster power | TheHill

And Obama is salivating...he can ram home his agenda with little to stop him. He is such a hypocrite.

 

[Nyvin]

Whether or not you are for/against the rule change, you have to admit this congress is pretty fricking dysfunctional at the moment. They literally haven't passed "anything" into law for the past year.

 

[Article 15]

obama 2005-

“I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness,” “I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.”

“The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster – if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,”



Obama 2013

“The gears of government have to work and the step that a majority of senators took today I think will help make those gears work just a little bit better,” he said in a statement from the White House briefing room.

Senate guts filibuster power | TheHill

Ah, the king of intellectual dishonesty, the purveyor of the disingenuous weighs in!

It's almost as if shit is totally different now that it was then.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Rozman]

Anything to take the heat off Obama for a few days...

 

[The T]

If you would ever read the Federalist papers, you'd know how wrong you are, Polk:

Polk has forgotten more about US History than you will ever know, fat basement dwelling loser.

LOL. Do you have anything better to do than play the role of a cheerleader?

Article 15 is one best left lie. He's a doofus of first order.

 

[mudwhistle]

Reid did it to Bush and now he doesn't like it being done to Barry. Ever hear of the phrase "litmus test"?



But this is predictable.

Democrats have to get their way or they just go around the rules.