Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Amelia]

No doubt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Someone is deliberately misdefining terms for partisan, political gain.

The pubs have not approved 99% of Obama's nominations.

Court packing has to do with increasing the number of SCOTUS seats so that one party can protect its legislation.

Obama kicks America to the curb everytime he goes overseas.

He's getting the tables turned on him with or without a filibuster.

Sooner or later the Pubs will take the Senate, yes. But now and probably not next year, but who knows?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Get rid of the filibuster entirely.

It is undemocratic and stupid.

Elections have consequences.

Republicans are worried because the states are the only districts they can't gerrymander.

Democrats just assured that courts will be functionally gerrymandered. They will be stacked with partisan jurists with lifelong appointments because there will be no opportunity for the minority party to object to extreme appointments. Strife will rein because voices of moderation have just been squeezed out of the decision making process.

The far right is not moderate. If we had given them three, we still had 90 to play with.

Now we have given them 93.

Once again, the far right is not moderate.

 

[Amelia]

Get rid of the filibuster entirely.

It is undemocratic and stupid.

Elections have consequences.

Republicans are worried because the states are the only districts they can't gerrymander.

Democrats just assured that courts will be functionally gerrymandered. They will be stacked with partisan jurists with lifelong appointments because there will be no opportunity for the minority party to object to extreme appointments. Strife will rein because voices of moderation have just been squeezed out of the decision making process.

The far right is not moderate. If we had given them three, we still had 90 to play with.

Now we have given them 93.

Once again, the far right is not moderate.

Of course the far right is not moderate. Why even say that? Did that sound profound to you?

The far left is not moderate either.

The far ends of the party aren't needed to overcome a filibuster. The party in power doesn't have to bring everyone else on board. They just have to be moderate enough to convince the more moderate members of the opposition. If they can't do that, then they're doing something wrong.

The nuclear option was only "needed" because of the failed leadership of the current Democrat party.

Democrats needed to be moderate enough to bring independents and moderate Republicans on board with them, who would have influenced moderate members of the GOP.

Democrats failed to do that.



But now there is no more need to convince moderates of anything. Presidents can now appoint extreme judges and there's no mechanism to stop them from being confirmed. The polarization which gerrymandering has brought to congressional races will now infect the courts.

 

[oreo]

The timing of this is also interesting.

Is there any doubt that since going for the nuke option has been considered for quite some time, that they picked now in order to get the Obamacare disaster off the headlines ?

Yeah. but it's not going to work. 275 years of Senate history on the filibuster up in smoke. I agree it was a move to throw the left wing a bone--but the consequences of it are unbelievable. There's no doubt that Republicans are going to take the senate in 2014, and probably the Presidency in 2016. Hillary isn't going to come close--she was in Obama's administration.

Meaning we will see very soon a full house of Republicans--that will use the Nuclear option on anything they want--and for you LIBERALS you only have Obama and Harry Reid to blame for it. Obviously--the democrats in the senate and President are extremely short sighted. And it's because they are in an all out panic over Obamacare. And with the Nuclear Option republicans will easily be able to repeal Obamacare with a stroke of a pen.

Besides Obamacare--actually voting to use the Nuclear Option--is the DUMBEST thing Democrats have ever done.

Now here is Obama--Reid and the rest of them in 2005--talking about Republicans using the "threat" of a Nuclear Option--and how horrible it was.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ]Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

Democrats just assured that courts will be functionally gerrymandered. They will be stacked with partisan jurists with lifelong appointments because there will be no opportunity for the minority party to object to extreme appointments. Strife will rein because voices of moderation have just been squeezed out of the decision making process.

The far right is not moderate. If we had given them three, we still had 90 to play with.

Now we have given them 93.

Once again, the far right is not moderate.

Of course the far right is not moderate. Why even say that? Did that sound profound to you?

The far left is not moderate either.

The far ends of the party aren't needed to overcome a filibuster. The party in power doesn't have to bring everyone else on board. They just have to be moderate enough to convince the more moderate members of the opposition. If they can't do that, then they're doing something wrong.

The nuclear option was only "needed" because of the failed leadership of the current Democrat party.

Democrats needed to be moderate enough to bring independents and moderate Republicans on board with them, who would have influenced moderate members of the GOP.

Democrats failed to do that.



But now there is no more need to convince moderates of anything. Presidents can now appoint extreme judges and there's no mechanism to stop them from being confirmed. The polarization which gerrymandering has brought to congressional races will now infect the courts.

Nailed it. So much so that I'm willing to forgive the otherwise unforgivable faux pas of actually responding to Starkey post.

 

[Amelia]

Democrats wanted us to forget this:

President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 40.4
Disapprove 55.4
Spread -15.0


Too bad, so sad. Not going to happen, Reid. You promised that as long as you were leader of the senate, the nuclear option would not occur. You broke your promise for nothing. Your team betrayed the name "Democrat" and you're going to pay the price.

 

[Amelia]

Thanks, dblack.

 

[HenryBHough]

A Democrat? Broke a promise?

Not possible. You don't believe me then ask PMSNBC.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The second best part of today's news is getting to see the Right go epileptic over it.

En masse. lolol

 

[ScienceRocks]

Next Boehner power needs to be removed....

So that the moderates of both parties can repeal sequester and prevent another shut down!

 

[Amelia]

i think this is much ado about very little. the change is very narrow - it doesn't affect legislation, or supreme court nominations. it doesn't prevent any senator from voting their conscience, or speaking their mind.

i'm not particularly happy with the change, but if it is, as republicans claim born out of a 'manufactured crisis' then it will have little to no real impact.

I agree that this change is relatively narrow. However, it erodes the filibuster and makes the next attempt to erode it easier.

And of course it violates the promise made by Harry Reid that as long as he was leader this wouldn't happen.

I take back my agreement. I didn't think about how much change Obama will be able to effect with agency appointments which he can now make without paying attention to anyone. At all. Democrats won't oppose him. Republicans can't oppose him. There is no incentive for this incompetent president who has surrounded himself with shallow and partisan advisors to ever seek competent counsel for the rest of his term.

Hopefully the Republicans can take back the Senate and contain the damage he does to whatever he can accomplish in one year instead of giving him three years to do it.

 

[Dot Com]

I'm back. I had to go out and TCB IRL

The Repubs gridlock brought this on the senate. The blame lays squarely on their shoulders. Own it Righties.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm back. I had to go out and TCB IRL

The Repubs gridlock brought this on the senate. The blame lays squarely on their shoulders. Own it Righties.

I hope Reid goes nuclear tomorrow on the 60 votes on passage for closure of bills That really is bull shit as the majority should be able to govern!

 

[Dot Com]

It isn't the end of the world. For the party of no perhaps but not for the majority of people in this great nation

Confused about the 'nuclear option?' What you need to know - NBC Politics

Q: Sixty votes seems pretty reasonable to me. Why the fuss?

A: It used to be that nominees rarely had to overcome the 60-vote threshold. From 1968 to 1992, the whole process of having to vote to overcome a possible filibuster was done no more than three times every two years or so. But since the Bush years – and now frequently during Obama’s presidency – the party that isn’t in power has made the filibuster pretty much business-as-usual in the Senate, even if no one objects to the actual person being nominated for a job.

DeMint was notorious for this. He had a "standing filibuster". Thats one reason he cashed-in on his taxpayer-funded job to be at the trough full time at Heritage Foundation. Hypocrite.

 

[Amelia]

I'm back. I had to go out and TCB IRL

The Repubs gridlock brought this on the senate. The blame lays squarely on their shoulders. Own it Righties.

The American gridlock does not justify Democrat lies and power grabs.

Reid promised that as long as he was leader, this wouldn't happen.

Now Obama has no more motivation to pay attention to what anyone ever says they need. Ever again. Now it's all about what he thinks is best, and that should scare even his most ardent apologists.

No need for balance from him. Ever again. And he wasn't good at providing it even when there still was a theoretical need.



And then when he fucks things up even worse than he has done already, ensuring Republican control of the government in 2016, there will be nothing to restrain the new Republican president. The Republican president will have promised that he'll be better than Democrats and will have promised that he'll listen to voices across the spectrum, but once he has the Oval Office what power will there be to make him remember his promise?

None.



There will be havoc.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The republicans in the house DEMAND their way so the senate is now demanding theirs.

 

[Dot Com]

The rule change doesn't apply to legislation Amelia only to appointments

Confused about the 'nuclear option?' What you need to know - NBC Politics

Q: The Senate did something important today, but I’m confused: What exactly did they change?

A: Essentially, the Senate voted to eliminate filibusters for most presidential nominations. Nominations – like for judgeships or cabinet positions – previously had to get the support of 60 or more senators before a final vote if the minority party tried to block them. Under the new rules, most nominations will only need a simple majority to go forward.

This is even before the final vote so stop whinging people.

 

[Dot Com]

And then when he fucks things up even worse than he has done already, ensuring Republican control of the government in 2016, there will be nothing to restrain the new Republican president. The Republican president will have promised that he'll be better than Democrats and will have promised that he'll listen to voices across the spectrum, but once he has the Oval Office what power will there be to make him remember his promise?

None.



There will be havoc.

Republican President? Who?

 

[BlackSand]

I'm back. I had to go out and TCB IRL

The Repubs gridlock brought this on the senate. The blame lays squarely on their shoulders. Own it Righties.

“... if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse ...

I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything ...” ~ Senator Obama - April 13, 2005*

Is he lying now or was he lying then ... Your pick!


*Refer to post #628 if you care to read the rest of what he said or check context.
.