Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Erand7899]

IDK. The Right has moved so far to the right that they actually pride themselves on not even talking to the opposition.

Yes, we all realize that the desire for freedom, limited government, balanced budgets and low taxes are really extreme positions.

Some of us are so extreme that we believe spending hundreds of million of dollars on a friggin website is obscene proof of the lack of perspective and gross incompetence of big government. Not ot mention the utter stupidity of the liberals put in charge of such a program.

Others of us are so extreme that we actually believe that it is possible to provide health care insurance for 30 million people without screwing up the coverage of the 180 million that already have coverage.

No need to even delve into the idiocy of tossing more $billions down the tubes trying to force green energy into reality.

There’s nothing extreme concerning such positions, what’s extreme is the right’s refusal to afford freedom to all Americans and limit government to ensure all citizens realize their civil liberties. When conservatives seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, or women their privacy rights, for example, they cease to be advocates of freedom, and become instead agents of expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the people.

And when conservatives pursue balanced budgets and tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy, predicated on the fallacy of ‘trickle down’ economics, they exhibit the naïve, unrealistic nature of failed rightwing fiscal policy, where the most vulnerable of our society, through no fault of their own, are subject to needless economic hardship, the consequence of conservatives adhering blindly to dogma, as opposed to objective facts and evidence.

You make assumptions based on inaccuracies, and then pontificate from that point. Whether same sex marriage is a "right", is a debatable issue. However, not granting these "rights" that never existed before, could not possibly be an expansion of the power and authority of the state at the expense of anyone. Maintaining the status quo is not expanding power or authority.

Once again you assume that balanced budgets and tax cuts for the wealthy are intertwined and insepartable. A balanced budget benefits everyone, and forces government to be much more efficient and effective with the funds it has to spend. Since the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes, it is patent that any tax cut would benefit them more than anyone else. Your logic train has jumped the tracks.

You also seem to have some delusion that government exists to make your fiscal life easier. Except for those who cannot support themselves due to physical or mental deficiencies, you are expected to tend to your own fiscal needs, and either sink or swim on your own talents, abilities, and endeavor. Your idea that those who do succeed have some obligation to tow you along is wrongheaded, selfish and ruinous to any society.

 

[Toro]

I'm in favor of this.

The Republicans have abused the filibuster. Half of all the judicial filibusters have occurred over the past 4.5 years. That's ridiculous.

Not like the far left abused it when the Republicans were in charge.

Now the far left can just have their way without any opposition, just like trying to pass Obamacare.

How often did Democrats filibuster judicial appointments when they were the minority party and Bush was President?

 

[Synthaholic]

The case can be made that it is a tax, and an equal case can be made that it's a fine.

Roberts saw it as a tax.

Show me where the Solicitor General argued that it was a tax, please.

It's all irrelevant, since there is no fine or tax for not enrolling.

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

Trajan, the federal government did argue that it was a tax. I'm quite certain of that because we were calling them out for the hypocrisy of that at the time.

I don't know about "Solicitor General". I'm not sure of the titles of the people who made the argument on behalf of the government. I just know that people arguing on behalf of the government called it a tax.

I'll try to find a link but not sure how long that will take amid all the outrage over Roberts calling it a tax.

The SG argues cases before the SCOTUS on behalf of the government.

The one who argued this case was exceptionally bad.

Ted Olson was SG for Bush, and was very good in the job. He also 'won' Bush's selection in 2000, teamed up with Gore's lawyer to win marriage equality before SCOTUS, after leaving the Bushie's employ. His wife was on the flight that hit the Pentagon.

But all this nonsense about fines and taxes are just so much smoke. It's not going to be relevant, since there is going to be huge signups as time goes by.

We may see companies and corporations getting out of employer-based health, and paying employees the amount needed to be covered privately under the ACA.

It's going to be a huge success - that's what worries Right-Wingers.

 

[bodecea]

I'm in favor of this.

The Republicans have abused the filibuster. Half of all the judicial filibusters have occurred over the past 4.5 years. That's ridiculous.

Not like the far left abused it when the Republicans were in charge.

Now the far left can just have their way without any opposition, just like trying to pass Obamacare.

How often did Democrats filibuster judicial appointments when they were the minority party and Bush was President?

An excellent question.

 

[Synthaholic]

a "token attempt "at a filibuster isn't really a filibuster please...here , you're a politifact fan-

Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

PolitiFact | Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

And now Democrats are admitting that Team Mitch was correct, and has changed the rule.

What's the problem?


Mitch McConnell Once Supported Changing The Filibuster With Just 51 Votes

As Senate whip in 2005, Mitch McConnell helped leader the Senate Republican effort to change the filibuster rules.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INpeklsK6oA"]When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster - YouTube[/ame]

what does that have to do with this string of posts?

you made a comment here I answered it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8194780-post1347.html

if you're confused I can certainly understand that

I know the gop whined when they were getting hosed with filibusters etc...and?

Sorry, I missed that.

You say:

what made alito activist or unqualified? If I recall obama said;

"I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. ... And there's no indication he's not a man of great character."

looks to me like the Senator was only addressing his qualifications. Not his activism.

Was Alito considered activist before he came to SCOTUS? I don't know, but I will look.

There is no doubt that he has showed himself to be activist with his SCOTUS votes, so maybe Senator Obama had some info..

 

[Synthaholic]

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

Trajan, the federal government did argue that it was a tax. I'm quite certain of that because we were calling them out for the hypocrisy of that at the time.

I don't know about "Solicitor General". I'm not sure of the titles of the people who made the argument on behalf of the government. I just know that people arguing on behalf of the government called it a tax.

I'll try to find a link but not sure how long that will take amid all the outrage over Roberts calling it a tax.

uhmmmm, well I don't recall that, if they mentioned it if my memory serves it was tangentially...they were banking on the commerce clause. *shrugs*

That's correct. Regulation across state lines.

 

[paperview]

Here's a fun fact: "In both parties, nearly every senator in office more than five years has been both for and against the nuclear option."

 

[Synthaholic]

The case can be made that it is a tax, and an equal case can be made that it's a fine.

Roberts saw it as a tax.

Show me where the Solicitor General argued that it was a tax, please.

It's all irrelevant, since there is no fine or tax for not enrolling.

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

He is not correct @Trajan The solicitor general did argue it as a tax according to the American Barristers Association:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uoHABw&usg=AFQjCNHRVVj7m6JsY8_ABvuthtiGAZRsYA

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli cited the taxing power in the administration's third backup argument, according to Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog. The first was that the law could be enacted under the commerce clause, and the second was that it was authorized under the necessary and proper clause

Looks like they threw all three against the wall and one of them stuck.

Don't prosecutors add charges to ensure some kind of conviction? Whatever gets the job done.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's put an end to all filibusters permanently

 

[Intense]

How come Obama never called it a tax? Only became a tax later? Lot harder to ram taxes down someones throat than fines,

-Geaux

Obama called it a fine.

SCOTUS said, "You're wrong - it's a tax".


What's the problem?

The Obama administration team argued in court that it was a tax. Why were they arguing it was a tax when Obama swore it wasn't? Obama knew it wouldn't have been made law if it were deemed a tax but he let his justice team argue that it was to try to win the court fight.


There's no way to explain Obama's dishonesty away. He's like the string theory of dishonesty. Takes 10 dimensions or more to try to sort out Obama's dishonesty.

The Hypocrisy here is plain to you and I. These clowns only are concerned with the advancement of their agenda. The means, any means, right or wrong, does not compute to them. They neither see or are concerned with any damage or injustice they cause, directly or indirectly. I doubt many of them ever will give a shit. It's who they are.

 

[Dot Com]

Lets not re litigate the ACA, The election settled that.

As to the OP, Reid did what had to be done to get the people's work done.

 

[HenryBHough]

Think of all the money that could be saved if we just eliminated Congress entirely.

And think of all the carbon footprint reductions if people didn't have polls to go to every couple of years.

Might actually save the planet while killing off liberty!

 

[rightwinger]

Lets not re litigate the ACA, The election settled that.

As to the OP, Reid did what had to be done to get the people's work done.

If Republicans don't like it....they can always reinstate the filibuster if they ever take the Senate again

 

[BDBoop]

Alito wasn't filibustered, but there was a token attempt (72-25) at a filibuster. It was more a protest vote. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully filibustered.

Ahh, so not only can't Trajan answer my question, he has to lie in his deflection.

Got it!

Rumor has it, the man's got game. Maybe it's time he brought it.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Let's put an end to all filibusters permanently

You would like a single party government and all other opinions, political power and influence suppressed ....as long as your getting your way.. correct..

 

[Spoonman]

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.

when republicans win control of the senate in 2014 they can lol at reid for this one

 

[HenryBHough]

"Arcane", eh?

Reid's gonna learn a lot from this gaffe.

 

[bodecea]

Lets not re litigate the ACA, The election settled that.

As to the OP, Reid did what had to be done to get the people's work done.

If Republicans don't like it....they can always reinstate the filibuster if they ever take the Senate again

Yep....and, the chances of them doing that when they do?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

when republicans win control of the senate in 2014 they can lol at reid for this one

Not likely.

Particularly if there’s a preponderance of GOP/TPM candidates losing Senate elections, as occurred in 2010 and 2012.

 

[Toro]

Here's a fun fact: "In both parties, nearly every senator in office more than five years has been both for and against the nuclear option."

I heard that one reason why Reid did this was because he felt the Republicans were going to change the rules in 2015 if they won the Senate in fear that the Democrats would engage in the same obstructionist tactics as the Republicans have been doing. So why not do it now?