Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[paperview]

The filibuster has been around since, what, the early 1800's, I guess yup.. your statement confuses me..

And...back then,. ..you know, all the way back aught05 - scads of Senators and close to everybody on the pubbie and con side called it unconstitutional to have anything BUT a simple majority vote.

Here. let this help:


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters

...

Heh.

You seemed to be under the impression it took a supermajority for most of our history, I show you it wasn't, and your answer is post youtube clips??

Not even a thank you, huh?

The issue wasn't about the hypocrisy. We established long ago ALL congresscritters are world class hypocrites -- it's to show the simple majority was viewed as constitutional not so long ago.

Instead of saying "hey, I didn't know that," will you next treat me to a round of what the cons are saying these days about how it's Tyranny! Jack Booted Thugs! ARghhhh!

 

[paperview]

One good thing about removing the filibuster is that it encourages centrism, crossover coalitions and listening to your constituents. A senator can't hide behind cloture votes any longer; votes have to be done openly, on the actual issue.

Say there was a Republican senator with a pro-labor constituency. With a filibuster in effect, he could refuse to vote for cloture, keeping his party happy. And he could spin about and then tell the folks back home, with a straight face, that he hadn't voted against any labor bills. With filibuster gone, he has to vote on the actual bill, and face the folks back home.

That can be taken as either expanding or restricting the power of centrists. Buck your party or your constituents, make a choice. Either way, it does force them to be more honest. Centrists have the power in the senate, if they want to use it. A bipartisan coalition can swing any vote.

Excellent point.

 

[Spoonman]

I electoral history is our guide, and looking at the seats up for grabs, then the probability that the GOP will recapture the Senate is extremely high. But then again, I thought they were going to take the Senate in 2010, and dangnabbit if they didn't put up three of the whackiest, most fucked-up Tea Party clowns ever known to mankind...

Now, fast forward to 2012 and dangnabbit if the GOP didn't do it again by putting up at least two of the whackiest, most fucked-up Tea Party clowns ever known to mankind...

Let's wait until 2014 to see if I will be writing "dangnabbit" once again... ok?

a lot has changed since 2010, and it has not been in favor of the democrats.

Actually, 2010 was the low water mark, not now.

the democrats couldn't exploit the deaths of children to force their agenda on 2nd amendment rights. obamacare was only a vision, it hadn't launched yet. it handn't force 5 million people out of their plans. it hadn't sent sticker shock waves to millions more. people hadn't yet experienced the frustration of having to navigate it. in 2010 - blame bush was only two years old. in 2014 it will be 6 years old. lots of people have stopped blaming bush and are holding the democrats responsible now for all situations that hadn't improved. politicians that once rode high on the wave of hope and change have seen themselves recalled on the downward slide of democrats forcing an agenda americans don't really buy into the economy is still bad, jobs are no better. in fact, layoffs are happening again.
as predicted, small businesses are laying off because of obamacare. the national deficit is $17,000,000,000 and counting. entitlements are being cut because we can't afford them. the stimulus package bought votes in 2010. the democrats will not have that luxury in 2014.

 

[Amelia]

There have been 160 filibusters of judicial appointments, ever. 80 have occurred over the past 4.5 years.

However, according to this piece, it appears that ~50 of Bush's appointees were either filibustered or delayed.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And on top of that Reid took the extraordinary measure of holding pro forma Senate sessions so that Bush couldn't make recess appointments. (Then later when Obama declared the Senate in recess and made his appointments anyway, Reid refused to defend the right of the Senate to determine when it was in session.)

yes , a particularly venal piece of work that was.....


and what court smacked obama down for that?

Hmmm ... could it be the one Reid just helped Obama stack?

 

[Statistikhengst]

One good thing about removing the filibuster is that it encourages centrism, crossover coalitions and listening to your constituents. A senator can't hide behind cloture votes any longer; votes have to be done openly, on the actual issue.

Say there was a Republican senator with a pro-labor constituency. With a filibuster in effect, he could refuse to vote for cloture, keeping his party happy. And he could spin about and then tell the folks back home, with a straight face, that he hadn't voted against any labor bills. With filibuster gone, he has to vote on the actual bill, and face the folks back home.

That can be taken as either expanding or restricting the power of centrists. Buck your party or your constituents, make a choice. Either way, it does force them to be more honest. Centrists have the power in the senate, if they want to use it. A bipartisan coalition can swing any vote.

Removing the filibuster also reminds the public of exactly whom they voted into office. Elections have consequences. Don't like the consequences? Then make a difference at the ballot box the next time around! The Filibuster is one of the most fucked up things I have already seen. Fer Chrissakes, the Senate is already tilted toward the smaller states due to the fact that every state gets 2 Senators.

So, California, which has 2 Senators, but in terms of population is SIXTY ONE times larger than Wyoming, which also has 2 Senators, where, even if you scraped together all the bones of dead Democrats since 1892 through 2013 and breathed life back into them and registered them to vote, you wouldn't be seeing any Democrats win elections, but Wyoming also has two senators.

This means that a Senator from Wyoming, per Capita, is worth 31 times more than a Senator from California. Fucked up.

And then on top of that, the small states, most of which are Republican, get to filibuster, too!!!

AK - 3 EV
WY - 3 EV
MT- 3 EV
ND - 3 EV
SD - 3 EV
ID - 4 EV
NE - 5 EV
KS - 6 EV
UT - 6 EV
----------
36 EV

9 of the smallest states in the Union, worth 36 EV, also 18 Senators, or 18% of the Senate.

But those nine states combined don't even come close to 10% of the US population. Not even close.

Fucked up. Bad math. Tyranny of the minority. Undemocratic. The founding fathers were sharing a crack pipe on this one.

How many small states do the DEMS have?

DE - 3 EV
VT - 3 EV
RI - 4 EV
ME - 4 EV

That's it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

a lot has changed since 2010, and it has not been in favor of the democrats.

Actually, 2010 was the low water mark, not now.

the democrats couldn't exploit the deaths of children to force their agenda on 2nd amendment rights. obamacare was only a vision, it hadn't launched yet. it handn't force 5 million people out of their plans. it hadn't sent sticker shock waves to millions more. people hadn't yet experienced the frustration of having to navigate it. in 2010 - blame bush was only two years old. in 2014 it will be 6 years old. lots of people have stopped blaming bush and are holding the democrats responsible now for all situations that hadn't improved. politicians that once rode high on the wave of hope and change have seen themselves recalled on the downward slide of democrats forcing an agenda americans don't really buy into the economy is still bad, jobs are no better. in fact, layoffs are happening again.
as predicted, small businesses are laying off because of obamacare. the national deficit is $17,000,000,000 and counting. entitlements are being cut because we can't afford them. the stimulus package bought votes in 2010. the democrats will not have that luxury in 2014.

INteresting argument...

 

[Amelia]

One good thing about removing the filibuster is that it encourages centrism, crossover coalitions and listening to your constituents. A senator can't hide behind cloture votes any longer; votes have to be done openly, on the actual issue.

Say there was a Republican senator with a pro-labor constituency. With a filibuster in effect, he could refuse to vote for cloture, keeping his party happy. And he could spin about and then tell the folks back home, with a straight face, that he hadn't voted against any labor bills. With filibuster gone, he has to vote on the actual bill, and face the folks back home.

That can be taken as either expanding or restricting the power of centrists. Buck your party or your constituents, make a choice. Either way, it does force them to be more honest. Centrists have the power in the senate, if they want to use it. A bipartisan coalition can swing any vote.

Removing the filibuster also reminds the public of exactly whom they voted into office. Elections have consequences. Don't like the consequences? Then make a difference at the ballot box the next time around! The Filibuster is one of the most fucked up things I have already seen. Fer Chrissakes, the Senate is already tilted toward the smaller states due to the fact that every state gets 2 Senators.

So, California, which has 2 Senators, but in terms of population is SIXTY ONE times larger than Wyoming, which also has 2 Senators, where, even if you scraped together all the bones of dead Democrats since 1892 through 2013 and breathed life back into them and registered them to vote, you wouldn't be seeing any Democrats win elections, but Wyoming also has two senators.

This means that a Senator from Wyoming, per Capita, is worth 31 times more than a Senator from California. Fucked up.

And then on top of that, the small states, most of which are Republican, get to filibuster, too!!!

AK - 3 EV
WY - 3 EV
MT- 3 EV
ND - 3 EV
SD - 3 EV
ID - 4 EV
NE - 5 EV
KS - 6 EV
UT - 6 EV
----------
36 EV

9 of the smallest states in the Union, worth 36 EV, also 18 Senators, or 18% of the Senate.

But those nine states combined don't even come close to 10% of the US population. Not even close.

Fucked up. Bad math. Tyranny of the minority. Undemocratic. The founding fathers were sharing a crack pipe on this one.

How many small states do the DEMS have?

DE - 3 EV
VT - 3 EV
RI - 4 EV
ME - 4 EV

That's it.

All these people saying "elections have consequences" seem way too glib about how Reid said in 2008 that the nuclear option would not happen while he was leader of the senate.

The consequences people need to learn about are not to vote for Democrats because Democrats willfully break promises, then lie about the broken promises, and then break promises some more when they start feeling the heat from being such wretchedly dishonest "leaders".

 

[Spoonman]

Actually, 2010 was the low water mark, not now.

the democrats couldn't exploit the deaths of children to force their agenda on 2nd amendment rights. obamacare was only a vision, it hadn't launched yet. it handn't force 5 million people out of their plans. it hadn't sent sticker shock waves to millions more. people hadn't yet experienced the frustration of having to navigate it. in 2010 - blame bush was only two years old. in 2014 it will be 6 years old. lots of people have stopped blaming bush and are holding the democrats responsible now for all situations that hadn't improved. politicians that once rode high on the wave of hope and change have seen themselves recalled on the downward slide of democrats forcing an agenda americans don't really buy into the economy is still bad, jobs are no better. in fact, layoffs are happening again.
as predicted, small businesses are laying off because of obamacare. the national deficit is $17,000,000,000 and counting. entitlements are being cut because we can't afford them. the stimulus package bought votes in 2010. the democrats will not have that luxury in 2014.

INteresting argument...

think about it. has the democrats attack on the 2nd amendment cost the republicans any votes? no, not really. but to think there aren't many democrats who are gun owners and are very pro gun rights is a mistake. their actions will most definitely cost them voters. has the launch of obamacare cost the republicans votes. no, not really. none they didn't already not have with the former positive perspective of the concept of obamacare. but its launch has alienated many former supporters. it has either negatively impacted them or has not turned out to be the bargain they were expecting. the ones it might work for were already democratic voters anyway. who is really doing better in the economy? the rich. who has gained from the rise in the stock market? the rich. the middle class is still floundering. they have lost faith in hope and change because they haven't seen any fruits from the past 5 years. and now the poor are even going to start to take hits. and those hits will deepen. what they gained from the stimulus, they are now losing. and bush isn't here to blame.

look at the swing states. how have they faired? not really well. and the votes in those states were real close. they will be up for grab. states the republicans won, they won big. a lot of the states the democrats won, they just slid by. and they don't have a lot to build on for 2014.

 

[BlackSand]

Removing the filibuster also reminds the public of exactly whom they voted into office. Elections have consequences. Don't like the consequences? Then make a difference at the ballot box the next time around! The Filibuster is one of the most fucked up things I have already seen. Fer Chrissakes, the Senate is already tilted toward the smaller states due to the fact that every state gets 2 Senators.

So, California, which in terms of population is SIXTY ONE times larger than Wyoming, where, even if you scraped together all the bones of dead Democrats since 1892 and breathed life back into them, you wouldn't be seeing any Democrats win elections, but Wyoming also has two senators.

This means that a Senators from Wyoming, per Capita, is worth 31 times more than a Senator from California.

And then on top of that, the small states, most of which are Republican, get to filibuster, too!!!

AK - 3 EV
WY - 3 EV
MT- 3 EV
ND - 3 EV
SD - 3 EV
ID - 4 EV
NE - 5 EV
KS - 6 EV
UT - 6 EV
----------
36 EV

9 of the smallest states in the Union, worth 36 EV, also 18 Senators, or 18% of the Senate.

But those nine states combined don't even come close to 10% of the US population. Not even close.

Fucked up. Bad math. Tyranny of the minority. Undemocratic. The founding fathers were sharing a crack pipe on this one.

You ever read a post that is so wrong that you just have a hard time figuring out exactly how far you are going to have to break it down before the poster might understand how wrong they are?

You get about 20 sentences into an explanation ... Go back and revise the wording in places to make sure your point is clear.
You get rid of all the accusations ... Cut out more than a few cuss words ... And try to figure out a better way to explain even the most basic concepts of a Representative Republic.
You want to help them understand ... You understand what they think ... And realize that they do a better job of explaining how they are so wrong with the very way they worded the post you are responding to.

Then you just say ... "Fuck It ... That poor bastard is too far gone."

.

 

[Lumpy 1]

And...back then,. ..you know, all the way back aught05 - scads of Senators and close to everybody on the pubbie and con side called it unconstitutional to have anything BUT a simple majority vote.

Here. let this help:


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters

...

Heh.

You seemed to be under the impression it took a supermajority for most of our history, I show you it wasn't, and your answer is post youtube clips??

Not even a thank you, huh?

The issue wasn't about the hypocrisy. We established long ago ALL congresscritters are world class hypocrites -- it's to show the simple majority was viewed as constitutional not so long ago.

Instead of saying "hey, I didn't know that," will you next treat me to a round of what the cons are saying these days about how it's Tyranny! Jack Booted Thugs! ARghhhh!

I have a lot of fires going on, I'm cooking dinner..

Thanks for your sneering response, I appreciated it....really I did..

 

[paperview]

...

Heh.

You seemed to be under the impression it took a supermajority for most of our history, I show you it wasn't, and your answer is post youtube clips??

Not even a thank you, huh?

The issue wasn't about the hypocrisy. We established long ago ALL congresscritters are world class hypocrites -- it's to show the simple majority was viewed as constitutional not so long ago.

Instead of saying "hey, I didn't know that," will you next treat me to a round of what the cons are saying these days about how it's Tyranny! Jack Booted Thugs! ARghhhh!

I have a lot of fires going on, I'm cooking dinner..

Thanks for your sneering response, I appreciated it....really I did..

You're welcome.

 

[paperview]

... Representative Republic.
...

That term is redundant.

 

[BlackSand]

... Representative Republic.
...

That term is redundant.

Bingo ... We have another winner.

.

 

[Nyvin]

look at the swing states. how have they faired? not really well. and the votes in those states were real close. they will be up for grab. states the republicans won, they won big. a lot of the states the democrats won, they just slid by. and they don't have a lot to build on for 2014.

Uhh...that's probably because Obama won ALL THE SWING STATES except North Carolina. And in North Carolina? No, the GOP didn't win big, they won by about 1.8%. That was the second closest race after Florida.

 

[Trajan]

One good thing about removing the filibuster is that it encourages centrism, crossover coalitions and listening to your constituents. A senator can't hide behind cloture votes any longer; votes have to be done openly, on the actual issue.

Say there was a Republican senator with a pro-labor constituency. With a filibuster in effect, he could refuse to vote for cloture, keeping his party happy. And he could spin about and then tell the folks back home, with a straight face, that he hadn't voted against any labor bills. With filibuster gone, he has to vote on the actual bill, and face the folks back home.

That can be taken as either expanding or restricting the power of centrists. Buck your party or your constituents, make a choice. Either way, it does force them to be more honest. Centrists have the power in the senate, if they want to use it. A bipartisan coalition can swing any vote.

Uhm, thats horsehockey ask the 63 house members that walked the plank for obamacare. party discipline is enforced, always has, always will be.....

 

[hunarcy]

All these people saying "elections have consequences" seem way too glib about how Reid said in 2008 that the nuclear option would not happen while he was leader of the senate.

The consequences people need to learn about are not to vote for Democrats because Democrats willfully break promises, then lie about the broken promises, and then break promises some more when they start feeling the heat from being such wretchedly dishonest "leaders".

Not to mention that at the beginning of this year, Reid and McConnell made a deal to change the filibuster rules with the understanding that the nuclear option wouldn't be considered. Reid got almost all he wanted, and STILL welshed on the deal. Reid won't be able to negotiate anything with anyone in the future.

 

[paperview]

... Representative Republic.
...

That term is redundant.

Bingo ... We have another winner.

.

Thank you. I do think myself quite a winner, not in the way you imply, but most certainly am a winner.

Life is Good!

And the term representative republic is still redundant.

 

[Bloodrock44]

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

Republicans are honorable people. I'm sure that they would not continue a Democrat process that they call tyranny

Double snicker. The first is over the thought that Republicans are somehow honorable.

The second, well, you already know.

Talk about fair and balanced, comrade.

 

[BlackSand]

That term is redundant.

Bingo ... We have another winner.

.

Thank you. I do think myself quite a winner, not in the way you imply, but most certainly am a winner.

Life is Good!

And the term representative republic is still redundant.

Damn right life is good ... And yes "Representative Republic" is redundant.
You won the prize ... Bingo ... Yay .. Balloons Falling ... Pat Yourself On the Back ... Ooops, You Already Have.

.

 

[paperview]

...and the front.


mmm. num num.