Reid: 'Nuclear Option'

[Star]

.
Harry Reid Focuses On July For The 'Nuclear Option'

Gabrielle Dunkley
05/17/2013

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has told top advisers that he is prepared to take action if Senate Republicans block three upcoming nominations, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

Reid is reportedly focusing on the month of July to approach filibuster reform and possibly execute the "nuclear option," which would change the Senate rules and no longer require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

<snip>


'bout time Harry!
.

 

[boedicca]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

 

[Star]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

I personally believe the filibuster should have a role to play in protecting minority rights but-----but today's Republican Party overuse, misuse and abuse of the filibuster is undemocratic and has pushed beyond minority protection and is now a vehicle for minority rule and-----and according to Emmett Bondurant---unconstitutional.


At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “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.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That majority vote played into another principle, as well: the “finely wrought” compromise over proper representation. At the time of the country’s founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. “The supermajority vote requirement,” Bondurant argues, thus “upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.”

Establishing that the Founders intended Congress to operate by majority vote is different than saying that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to act in another way. After all, the Constitution also says that Congress has the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

But as Bondurant notes, there’s precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules: In 1892, in United States v. Ballin, the Court held that while “the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings,” it “may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.” And while some may argue that the filibuster has, at this point, been around for well over a century, the Supreme Court has previously held that the fact that “an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date.”

.

 

[Intense]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

I personally believe the filibuster should have a role to play in protecting minority rights but-----but today's Republican Party overuse, misuse and abuse of the filibuster is undemocratic and has pushed beyond minority protection and is now a vehicle for minority rule and-----and according to Emmett Bondurant---unconstitutional.


At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “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.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That majority vote played into another principle, as well: the “finely wrought” compromise over proper representation. At the time of the country’s founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. “The supermajority vote requirement,” Bondurant argues, thus “upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.”

Establishing that the Founders intended Congress to operate by majority vote is different than saying that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to act in another way. After all, the Constitution also says that Congress has the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

But as Bondurant notes, there’s precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules: In 1892, in United States v. Ballin, the Court held that while “the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings,” it “may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.” And while some may argue that the filibuster has, at this point, been around for well over a century, the Supreme Court has previously held that the fact that “an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date.”

.

As opposed to Democratic Party Overuse? Reality check. The Majority Party will pretty much generally feel that the Filibuster works against the good of the Nation. In reality, it creates a higher bar, when imposing new Powers. Why is that so bad?

 

[longknife]

Oh good Lord! Another Redneck Liberal trying to defend Dingy Harry!

The Democrats have been "pocket blocking" GOP presidential nominations for decades and they just now find it intolerable because the opposition is just now following their lead?

What hypocrisy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After 2014, Dems will be a small minority in Congress

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Not a party issue.

None of the rules of either house have a constitutional basis in party politics. Okay, except in the minds of fucking idiots.

Two changes are inevitable in the senate; the first internal, the second will be imposed by the courts or it will be imposed by the executive ordering the senate into full session during "technical" in-sessions maintained solely for the purpose of ending out of session appointments:

1. End of filibuster by proxy (possible return of blabbermouth filibuster)

2. End of technical "in-session" bogusness.

 

[Missourian]

Great! Do it! Republicans will control the senate in 2014.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Great! Do it! Republicans will control the senate in 2014.

Be clear I haven't voted for a Democrat (other than Obama in 2008) at or above congressional level since the 1970s, knew Reagan was big spending New Dealer before 1980 and would rather be dead than vote for a filthy fucking nutball.

Having noted my alienation from both gaggles of partisan cocksuckers undermining America today, it'd be interesting to read some factual basis underlying some path - ANY PATH - to nutballs taking the senate in 2014.

My money says nutballs will be lucky to hold the house given their anti-women positions and their anti blue collar labor positions.

 

[Missourian]

Great! Do it! Republicans will control the senate in 2014.

Be clear I haven't voted for a Democrat (other than Obama in 2008) at or above congressional level since the 1970s, knew Reagan was big spending New Dealer before 1980 and would rather be dead than vote for a filthy fucking nutball.

Having noted my alienation from both gaggles of partisan cocksuckers undermining America today, it'd be interesting to read some factual basis underlying some path - ANY PATH - to nutballs taking the senate in 2014.

My money says nutballs will be lucky to hold the house given their anti-women positions and their anti blue collar labor positions.

No second term President has EVER gained Senate seats in a midterm election and this election cycle is no exception...no Republicans are vulnerable.

Democrats are defending 21 seats, Republicans only 14.

Seven of those 21 are red states. Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina and South Dakota.

Harkin (Iowa) and Baucus (Montana) are retiring.

No Obama on the ticket to draw voters like 2008...the last time this group of senators faced an election.

It will all come down to the primaries. Strong candidates will be key in every Red State, but especially Alaska and Arkansas.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Just a question? Does anyone know why the Democrats never think ahead? an example: They shoved Obama care down are throats and then cry when the tea party rose up and republicans took the house, put the brakes on Obama, They are a strange bunch of folks.

 

[longknife]

Not a party issue.

None of the rules of either house have a constitutional basis in party politics. Okay, except in the minds of fucking idiots.

Two changes are inevitable in the senate; the first internal, the second will be imposed by the courts or it will be imposed by the executive ordering the senate into full session during "technical" in-sessions maintained solely for the purpose of ending out of session appointments:

1. End of filibuster by proxy (possible return of blabbermouth filibuster)

2. End of technical "in-session" bogusness.

Article 1, Section Five of the US Constitution includes the following:

Clause 2: Rules

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House can determine its own Rules (assuming a quorum is present), and may punish any of its members. A two-thirds vote is necessary to expel a member. Section 5, Clause 2 does not provide specific guidance to each House regarding when and how each House may change its rules, leaving details to the respective chambers.

At the beginning of each Congress, House and Senate leaders call for a vote approving or disapproving of the Standing Rules, and then propose changes/amendments as proposed.

The leaders of both houses are elected by the members of the party in the majority. So, as Senate Majority Leader, Dingy Harry can propose changes to be voted on by the entire Senate.

The ONLY place in the constitution that specified percentages is in proposing and approving amendments to the constitution itself. 2/3 of each house to send to the states who must ratify by a 3/4 majority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.
Harry Reid Focuses On July For The 'Nuclear Option'

Gabrielle Dunkley
05/17/2013

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has told top advisers that he is prepared to take action if Senate Republicans block three upcoming nominations, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

Reid is reportedly focusing on the month of July to approach filibuster reform and possibly execute the "nuclear option," which would change the Senate rules and no longer require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

<snip>


'bout time Harry!
.

Harry Reid is an idiot, he can't change the rules in July.

 

[AmyNation]

Washington Post

"Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate. Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes. As you can see, the majority is having to try and break many, many, many more filibusters than ever before."

 

[mmmjvpssm]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Oh for Gods sake don't give us that if we do it then they'll do it bullshit. You know as well as I do that the Republicans will use the nuclear option when they get the majority regardless of what Reid does now

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Great! Do it! Republicans will control the senate in 2014.

No they won't

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Great! Do it! Republicans will control the senate in 2014.

Be clear I haven't voted for a Democrat (other than Obama in 2008) at or above congressional level since the 1970s, knew Reagan was big spending New Dealer before 1980 and would rather be dead than vote for a filthy fucking nutball.

Having noted my alienation from both gaggles of partisan cocksuckers undermining America today, it'd be interesting to read some factual basis underlying some path - ANY PATH - to nutballs taking the senate in 2014.

My money says nutballs will be lucky to hold the house given their anti-women positions and their anti blue collar labor positions.

No second term President has EVER gained Senate seats in a midterm election and this election cycle is no exception...no Republicans are vulnerable.

Democrats are defending 21 seats, Republicans only 14.

Seven of those 21 are red states. Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina and South Dakota.

Harkin (Iowa) and Baucus (Montana) are retiring.

No Obama on the ticket to draw voters like 2008...the last time this group of senators faced an election.

It will all come down to the primaries. Strong candidates will be key in every Red State, but especially Alaska and Arkansas.

No question the fundamentals look good for the GOP. All aware people can agree on that. What is not apparent to me are the McGuffins: what makes someone go to the polls and what diminishes the NEED to vote?

Hard to see any compelling reasons to continue to continue to kill one's own opportunities - continue job killing policies by re electing folks from the fake-free market open borders anti-labor crowd. On the upside for both parties, that is both parties. The downside for voters is that is both parties.

Which is why folks like me have little interest in politics short of a third party focused on budget issues, focused on economic/tax policies promoting a strong, vibrant private-sector blue collar middle class, and vaporizing members who bring in religious or human potential horseshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.
Harry Reid Focuses On July For The 'Nuclear Option'

Gabrielle Dunkley
05/17/2013

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has told top advisers that he is prepared to take action if Senate Republicans block three upcoming nominations, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

Reid is reportedly focusing on the month of July to approach filibuster reform and possibly execute the "nuclear option," which would change the Senate rules and no longer require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

<snip>


'bout time Harry!
.

Wait. Didn't these hypocritical shitstains spend MONTHS telling us how immoral and Unamerican the "nuclear option" was when Republicans threatened to use it against them? Now, all of a sudden, it's spiffy and "about time"?

And people wonder why I say I wouldn't piss on a leftist if he was on fire. You assholes would be a waste of urine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Oh for Gods sake don't give us that if we do it then they'll do it bullshit. You know as well as I do that the Republicans will use the nuclear option when they get the majority regardless of what Reid does now

And you know as well as I do that if and when they do, "Dingy" Harry will piss and moan about how unconscionable it is, and your sorry sheep ass will be in here cheering him on for THAT.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Great! Do it! Republicans will control the senate in 2014.

Be clear I haven't voted for a Democrat (other than Obama in 2008) at or above congressional level since the 1970s, knew Reagan was big spending New Dealer before 1980 and would rather be dead than vote for a filthy fucking nutball.

Having noted my alienation from both gaggles of partisan cocksuckers undermining America today, it'd be interesting to read some factual basis underlying some path - ANY PATH - to nutballs taking the senate in 2014.

My money says nutballs will be lucky to hold the house given their anti-women positions and their anti blue collar labor positions.

No second term President has EVER gained Senate seats in a midterm election and this election cycle is no exception...no Republicans are vulnerable.

Democrats are defending 21 seats, Republicans only 14.

Seven of those 21 are red states. Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina and South Dakota.

Harkin (Iowa) and Baucus (Montana) are retiring.

No Obama on the ticket to draw voters like 2008...the last time this group of senators faced an election.

It will all come down to the primaries. Strong candidates will be key in every Red State, but especially Alaska and Arkansas.

In 1907 the Republicans gained 3 during Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's second term

Johnson gained 2 Senate seats in 1966