Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Old Rocks]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

Jake, you are talking sanity in the political process. Something the present GOP is resisting with all their might. I hope people like you win out in the end, as we need at least two strong parties that are sane.

Please..... Not going to happen

-Geaux

That is correct. Not going to happen and you now get the 93 judges. And all the rest of the appointees that will come up. Without any need of worrying about what the GOP thinks of them. That is the situation people with your attitude within the GOP have created, and now you get to enjoy the results. Really as stupid as I have seen in politics.

 

[Nyvin]

Actually, Nyvin, it's three. Obama has this year appointed and failed to seat three judges

Caitlin Joan Halligan in March, Robert L. Wilkins in October and Patricia Millett about a week or so ago.




Obama 0 for 3 as GOP blocks another D.C. Circuit nomination - latimes.com

Have a seat.

Oh...usually you say "Nominated" or "attempting to appoint" like the article does. "Appointed" means that the procedure has finished and they have the job. "Nominated" means selected by the president for the job.

Like I said, Obama has "appointed" 1 judge.

I know it's wiki but makes you look stupid
39 federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices
List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ummm..how does it make me look stupid??? It backs up my point...

Look at the judges that havn't been confirmed....they aren't numbered as "appointed". The list doesn't include them in the 211 because they haven't been "appointed" (they're the ones in gray and brown...you know, the ones that don't have voting numbers with them).

Boy...talk about think before you speak...

And if you're talking about the "1 appointed" by Obama I was talking about the DC Circuit....good gawd I hope that was obvious

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jake, you are talking sanity in the political process. Something the present GOP is resisting with all their might. I hope people like you win out in the end, as we need at least two strong parties that are sane.

Please..... Not going to happen

-Geaux

That is correct. Not going to happen and you now get the 93 judges. And all the rest of the appointees that will come up. Without any need of worrying about what the GOP thinks of them. That is the situation people with your attitude within the GOP have created, and now you get to enjoy the results. Really as stupid as I have seen in politics.

True.

And what republicans think will matter to the extent that their objection to a given nominee goes beyond his political affiliation, or the political affiliation of the president nominating him.

If a given nominee is indeed unfit to hold office, Senate republicans are at liberty to convince their democratic colleagues of that using objective, documented facts and evidence, not subjective partisan dogma.

 

[Chris]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

 

[Mac1958]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

Liberals don't disagree that individuals have the ability and the responsibility to improve their own lives. We just don't see the government as an enemy in that regard, but as a helpful friend.

To me it's a matter of equilibrium and a poisoned political climate.

On one end, we have conservatives who won't admit that government can, for all its bloat and waste, provide support and services that can help people help themselves. And to a point, that bloat and waste is worth it on a macro level. On the other end, we have liberals who won't admit that it's easy to create a destructive, intergenerational, intercultural dependency on government, and that there is a line that is frequently crossed by not recognizing that fact.

Both sides are entrenched and unwilling to give an inch on this. This should not be an absolutist, winner-takes-all, all-or-nothing issue, and that's where we are right now.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

Very true

Republicans have given up on winning the popular vote. They have substituted procedural means to remain competitive

- Gerrymander the House
- Hastert Rule
- Repeal 17 th amendment for the Senate
- Restructure how electoral college votes are assigned
- Block Democrats from assigning judges
- Flibuster

 

[Redfish]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

Very true

Republicans have given up on winning the popular vote. They have substituted procedural means to remain competitive

- Gerrymander the House
- Hastert Rule
- Repeal 17 th amendment for the Senate
- Restructure how electoral college votes are assigned
- Block Democrats from assigning judges
- Flibuster

total horseshit--------who writes this crap for you guys?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

Very true

Republicans have given up on winning the popular vote. They have substituted procedural means to remain competitive

- Gerrymander the House
- Hastert Rule
- Repeal 17 th amendment for the Senate
- Restructure how electoral college votes are assigned
- Block Democrats from assigning judges
- Flibuster

total horseshit--------who writes this crap for you guys?

Republicans.

But you’re too much of a blind partisan rightwing hack to see it.

 

[paperview]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

Very true

Republicans have given up on winning the popular vote. They have substituted procedural means to remain competitive

- Gerrymander the House
- Hastert Rule
- Repeal 17 th amendment for the Senate
- Restructure how electoral college votes are assigned
- Block Democrats from assigning judges
- Flibuster

Ayup.

 

[Trajan]

Please..... Not going to happen

-Geaux

That is correct. Not going to happen and you now get the 93 judges. And all the rest of the appointees that will come up. Without any need of worrying about what the GOP thinks of them. That is the situation people with your attitude within the GOP have created, and now you get to enjoy the results. Really as stupid as I have seen in politics.

True.

And what republicans think will matter to the extent that their objection to a given nominee goes beyond his political affiliation, or the political affiliation of the president nominating him.

If a given nominee is indeed unfit to hold office, Senate republicans are at liberty to convince their democratic colleagues of that using objective, documented facts and evidence, not subjective partisan dogma.

bologna...you want to use 2 benchmarks; yours then, when the table is turned, a different one .....so in the end, you can employ litmus tests etc. but the GOP cannot.....

 

[Trajan]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

Very true

Republicans have given up on winning the popular vote. They have substituted procedural means to remain competitive

- Gerrymander the House
- Hastert Rule
- Repeal 17 th amendment for the Senate
- Restructure how electoral college votes are assigned
- Block Democrats from assigning judges
- Flibuster

you're selectivity is fantastical, really...same old same old, I never hit johnny but he hit me...

 

[Contumacious]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

What do you think about a Constitutional Amendment preventing Parasites and war profiteers from voting?

?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

Liberals don't disagree that individuals have the ability and the responsibility to improve their own lives. We just don't see the government as an enemy in that regard, but as a helpful friend.

To me it's a matter of equilibrium and a poisoned political climate.

On one end, we have conservatives who won't admit that government can, for all its bloat and waste, provide support and services that can help people help themselves. And to a point, that bloat and waste is worth it on a macro level. On the other end, we have liberals who won't admit that it's easy to create a destructive, intergenerational, intercultural dependency on government, and that there is a line that is frequently crossed by not recognizing that fact.

Both sides are entrenched and unwilling to give an inch on this. This should not be an absolutist, winner-takes-all, all-or-nothing issue, and that's where we are right now.

.

Not exactly.

Liberals are more pragmatic in their approach, advocating a blend of public and private sectors, taking advantage of the strengths both have to offer, and acknowledge the fact that there are things best left to the private sector to address. Liberals also acknowledge government’s limitations and take no issue with reform when a given aspect of government becomes wasteful or ineffective.

Conflict between conservatives and liberals manifest when the former perceives government as comprehensively ‘bad,’ and seeks draconian ‘reforms’ predicated on subjective ideology rather than facts and evidence.

Government is not the enemy, nor is it the source of the Nation’s problems; the government and the people are one in the same, and it exists to reflect the will of the people and facilitate the implementation of policies and programs at the behest of the people.

Consequently, the right’s unwarranted and unjustified hostility to ‘all things government’ is counterproductive, and makes it more difficult to address the problems facing the Nation.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberals don't disagree that individuals have the ability and the responsibility to improve their own lives. We just don't see the government as an enemy in that regard, but as a helpful friend.

To me it's a matter of equilibrium and a poisoned political climate.

On one end, we have conservatives who won't admit that government can, for all its bloat and waste, provide support and services that can help people help themselves. And to a point, that bloat and waste is worth it on a macro level. On the other end, we have liberals who won't admit that it's easy to create a destructive, intergenerational, intercultural dependency on government, and that there is a line that is frequently crossed by not recognizing that fact.

Both sides are entrenched and unwilling to give an inch on this. This should not be an absolutist, winner-takes-all, all-or-nothing issue, and that's where we are right now.

.

Not exactly.

Liberals are more pragmatic in their approach, advocating a blend of public and private sectors, taking advantage of the strengths both have to offer, and acknowledge the fact that there are things best left to the private sector to address. Liberals also acknowledge government’s limitations and take no issue with reform when a given aspect of government becomes wasteful or ineffective.

Conflict between conservatives and liberals manifest when the former perceives government as comprehensively ‘bad,’ and seeks draconian ‘reforms’ predicated on subjective ideology rather than facts and evidence.

Government is not the enemy, nor is it the source of the Nation’s problems; the government and the people are one in the same, and it exists to reflect the will of the people and facilitate the implementation of policies and programs at the behest of the people.

Consequently, the right’s unwarranted and unjustified hostility to ‘all things government’ is counterproductive, and makes it more difficult to address the problems facing the Nation.

Yes, that's the standard opinion of the left.

.

 

[Londoner]

well, there was the bipartisan and secretive passing of the NDAA to kidnap American political dissidents and hold them in an offshore Article II court for the rest of their lives without trial or Habeas Corpus.

Agreed. Obama originally fought Bush on the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Read this:

"It was once the case under the Bush administration that the U.S. would abduct people from around the world, accuse them of being Terrorists, ship them to Guantanamo, and then keep them there for as long as we wanted without offering them any real due process to contest the accusations against them. That due-process-denying framework was legalized by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Many Democrats — including Barack Obama — claimed they were vehemently opposed to this denial of due process for detainees, and on June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that the denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees was unconstitutional and that all Guantanamo detainees have the right to a full hearing in which they can contest the accusations against them."

The Bush team outsmarted Obama and the Democrats in order to keep its ability to suspend Habeas Corpus.

"In the wake of the Boumediene ruling, the U.S. Government wanted to preserve the power to abduct people from around the world and bring them to American prisons without having to provide them any due process. So, instead of bringing them to our Guantanamo prison camp (where, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, they were entitled to habeas hearings), the Bush administration would instead simply send them to our prison camp in Bagram, Afghanistan, and then argue that because they were flown to Bagram rather than Guantanamo, they had no rights of any kind and Boudemiene didn’t apply to them. The Bush DOJ treated the Boumediene ruling, grounded in our most basic constitutional guarantees, as though it was some sort of a silly game — fly your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them forever with no judicial process. Put another way, you just close Guantanamo, move it to Afghanistan, and — presto — all constitutional obligations disappear."

Fast forward to Obama as president. He changes his tune.

"Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue — the Obama DOJ argued, as The New York Times‘s Charlie Savage put it, “that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.” Remember: these are not prisoners captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield. Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country — abducted from their homes and workplaces — and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned."

(The Leftwing press has opposed Obama on these things, Salon and NYT have both been extremely critical. And so have the Libertarians, including CATO, which has provided excellent analysis of this. Tragically, FOX News never once criticized Bush for these things. The result is that we have a large class of conservative voters who think surveillance and the suspension of Habeas Corpus is okay when there is a Republican in the White House. We need to free 1/2 the country from this media enslavement. Why? Because the GOP is coming back to the White House in 2016, and they are going to bring back the War on Terrorism (on steroids). Under the Dick Chaney wing of the party you will see the original Bush Terrorism Tools get stronger, including the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the erosion of the legal distinction between Enemy Combatant and American Citizen.

You understand that once a government suspends Habeas Corpus to put foreign terrorists in jail, there is typically a slippery slope whereby government eventually turns those mechanisms on its own people. This is how power works. The Soviets used "national security" to build a powerful surveillance state (saying "we want to protect you"), but then the political elite started using those surveillance powers to hunt their domestic political opponents. How do you think the Bush Fed got Eliot Spitzer? They used to the Patriot Act to track his finances when they should have been tracking Al Qaeda

The Republicans only need one more homeland attack to get all the things they didn't get in the 2000s. The War on Terrorism will be used to undermine everything in the Constitution which protects citizens from an over-reaching government. We will eventually see biometric ID cards and increased GPS tracking along with more monitoring of the internet and bank transactions. Problem is: Republican voters are trained not to attack their leaders (as are leftwing voters, though we see more Leftwing news sources attacking Obama for his continuation of the Bush Surveillance model). So we need you guys to put pressure on FOX News and the entire Rightwing media universe to shine a light on these things when a Republican holds the presidency (not just when a Democrat is in office). We can't just fight these issues when a Democrat holds the White House. Citizens from both sides must unite to solve problems, and not just be reduced to cheerleaders when their team holds power. I opposed the Bush surveillance state when Bush was creating it. And I doubly oppose it now.)

 

[Dot Com]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

so the phony moderate speaks up again,

I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

"balance"? Did you just say "balance"? You mean the Repubs initiating as many filibusters, since Obama became President (only 4 1/2 yrs mind you), than in the entire time before his Presidency? With that kind of "balance", its a good thing Reid addressed it because the President still has 3 1/2 yrs of his 2nd-term left. You're funny

 

[Jackson]

can anyone really blame him for the "party of no" (hint- the party that couldn't win the Presidency or the senate ) simply blocking anything that moves for the past 4+ yrs? Sen. Reid is a statesman & a scholar

Reid threatens to go nuclear on filibuster reform | MSNBC

“I’m considering looking at the rules,” the Nevada Democrat told reporters on Tuesday. “The American people are sick of this. In the name of simple fairness, any president, not just President Obama, Democrat or Republican, needs to be able to have the team that he wants in place,” Reid added.

Reid’s threat comes as Senate Republicans blocked – for the third time in three weeks—Obama’s pick, Robert Wilkins, to be a judge on the powerful D.C. Court of Appeals. Reid had a solid majority, but due to GOP’s exploitation of the Senate’s arcane rules, Democrats still fell six votes short of ending debate on Wilkins’ nomination.

For all practical purposes, there was no "party of No." If there was, there would not have been Obamacare.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have only won the popular vote in one presidential election in the last 20 years....2004. So they realized that the only way they can win is by blocking the black vote, having the Supreme Court allow unlimited secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering the House districts, and by parliamentary tricks like the filibuster and shutting down the government.

Desperate men do desperate things.

Very true

Republicans have given up on winning the popular vote. They have substituted procedural means to remain competitive

- Gerrymander the House
- Hastert Rule
- Repeal 17 th amendment for the Senate
- Restructure how electoral college votes are assigned
- Block Democrats from assigning judges
- Flibuster

you're selectivity is fantastical, really...same old same old, I never hit johnny but he hit me...

With the exception of repeal of the 17th amendment and modifying how electoral votes are assigned (both actively pursued by Republicans) all are currently being used by Repblicans to gain more power than they have been elected to

They can no longer win popular votes. Use procedural means to compensate

 

[1776]

So Reid, Obama, Biden, etc said the nuclear option was immoral, un-American, etc....a few years ago.....but now that they realize their socialist wet dream is on the verge of failure, they are pulling out all the stops.

 

[mudwhistle]

In other words:

Legislative terrorism.

Um, that would be called the Shutdown in October by the Republicans.

OH and while we're at it, there will be Legislative Terrorism Part 2 in February when they try to pull that shit again.

The GOP did not shut down the govt (er 15% of it). Obama did it. 1/2 of the house does not have the authority or the power to shut down any part of the govt.

Not wanting to raise the debt ceiling is a good thing, Obama himself called raising the debt ceiling unpatriotic and a sign of failed leadership. The GOP is doing the right thing in opposing any more debt.

Obama spent over $300 billion dollars the day after they raised the debt-ceiling.

WTF?????

U.S. National Debt Over $17 Trillion - Surges $328 Billion In A Single Day | SilverDoctors.com