Harry Reid: If We Win in November, We're Going to Nuke the Filibuster

[ScienceRocks]

Harry Reid: If We Win in November, We're Going to Nuke the Filibuster
Townhall.com ^ | Guy Benson



Harry Reid: If We Win in November, We're Going to Nuke the Filibuster - Guy Benson

He might be bluffing or playing to the MSNBC audience, but don't be so sure. He's already changed Senate rules on the fly to deny Republicans the opportunity to force uncomfortable votes and exploded Senate precedent on the amendment process within the last few years. Next up: Legislative filibuster Hiroshima?


In May, Harry Reid apologized for killing off a 2010 filibuster reform bill, admitting that the legislative procedure has been “abused, abused, and abused.” Reid has now gone a step farther: the Senate Majority Leader is now openly promising to pass filibuster reform in the beginning of the next Congress if Democrats manage to hold onto a simple majority in the Senate and if Obama is reelected. Reid made the remarks on Friday to MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, a day after Democrats were unable to overcome the GOP threat of a filibuster on a small-business tax-cut bill, which failed on a 53-44 vote:


REID: They’re just trying to kill this bill, as they’ve killed scores of other bills we’ve had because they’re filibustering. They’re filibustering until we have to change the rules. We can’t go on like this anymore. I don’t want to get rid of the filibuster, but I have to tell you, I want to change the rules and make the filibuster meaningful. The filibuster is not part of our constitution, it came about as a result of our wanting to get legislation passed, and now it’s being used to stop legislation from passing.

SCHULTZ: But you’d change the rules…

REID: Oh, we could have done it in the last Congress. But I got on the Senate floor and said that I made a mistake and I should have helped with that. It can be done if Obama is re-elected, and I can still do it if I have a majority, we can do it with a simple majority at the beginning of the next Congress.

SCHULTZ: Think the President will go along with that?

REID: You damn betcha.

Republicans have launched an unprecedented number of filibusters because Reid has used unprecedented tactics to block them from forcing tough votes or even offering amendments to legislation. (See: "filling the tree.") The only recourse for an otherwise powerless Senate minority, therefore, is to block cloture. This gridlock is a byproduct both of Reid's dreadful leadership and of the American people's will, which sent 63 new House members and seven new Republican Senators in 2010 explicitly to obstruct the Democrats' extreme agenda. Also, notice how Reid talks tough about nuking the filibuster only "if Democrats manage to hold onto a simple majority in the Senate and if Obama is reelected." Wait, so majority leader Reid wouldn't blow up decades of Senate comity and precedent under a President Romney? How very curious! I wonder why he'd suddenly rewind his jeremiad against long-established minority rights in that case. I'll leave you with this classic clip of pretty much every single Democrat Senator (including you-know-who) railing against the "tyranny" of the so-called nuclear option when Republicans were considering a form of it in 2005:


Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005

Keep in mind that this was all in response to a limited anti-filibuster maneuver (ultimately averted by the Gang of 14), which would have required a simple majority only for judicial appointments. After all, Article II of the Constitution says that the president "shall appoint" members of the judiciary, with merely the"advice and consent" of the Senate. James Madison had argued that a super-majority should be required to block such an appointment. The most relevant quote in the montage comes from California's Diane Feinstein:


"It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then, legislation."


Democrats vociferously objected to the judicial nuclear option a few years ago because it could open the door to the unthinkable: Doing away with the sacrosanct legislative filibuster. If Democrats win, Reid is promising to skip straight to that ultimate detonation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Good news!

 

[L.K.Eder]

reid is notably unhelpful.

 

[tinydancer]

Anyone who says that they are going to just sit out this election because they don't like Romney as an option needs a smackdown.

Because that means they are willing to throw all the cards to Obama and the Dems.

There is too much on the line.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Anyone who says that they are going to just sit out this election because they don't like Romney as an option needs a smackdown.

Because that means they are willing to throw all the cards to Obama and the Dems.

There is too much on the line.

aren't you canadian?

 

[Sallow]

Good.

 

[Vidi]

They should have nuked the fillibuster when they had control, like they talked about. The fact they didnt only goes to show that this is just another election year tactic by career politicians to promise but never actually come through on those promises.

 

[GuyPinestra]

When the elected representatives of 'We the People' start shitting on the rules that govern them we will have anarchy. In Congress, in the White House, in the Statehouses and in the streets.

I can only hope that there will remain enough of our military who take their oath seriously that we can avoid an all-out civil war.

When the anarchists come rioting down YOUR street will you fight them? Or join them?

This is a serious question, and the future of this nation may depend on your answer.

 

[candycorn]

Well, they should pass it but make it effective 4 years from the day they pass it so it doesn't immediately effect one party or the other.

 

[Rozman]

Are you telling me the leader of the Senate is actually gonna do something?
Maybe the media if they were an honest media and not Obama puppets should ask Dear Old Harry
if he will ever pass a Budget in our lifetime???
What a pathetic little man.

 

[L.K.Eder]

They should have nuked the fillibuster when they had control, like they talked about. The fact they didnt only goes to show that this is just another election year tactic by career politicians to promise but never actually come through on those promises.

nuking the filibuster is a shitty idea, and it will not be implemented.

 

[Wolfsister77]

I hope they do it.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I notice all you cheerleaders totally ignored THIS...

Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005

Keep in mind that this was all in response to a limited anti-filibuster maneuver (ultimately averted by the Gang of 14), which would have required a simple majority only for judicial appointments. After all, Article II of the Constitution says that the president "shall appoint" members of the judiciary, with merely the"advice and consent" of the Senate. James Madison had argued that a super-majority should be required to block such an appointment. The most relevant quote in the montage comes from California's Diane Feinstein:


"It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then, legislation."


Democrats vociferously objected to the judicial nuclear option a few years ago because it could open the door to the unthinkable: Doing away with the sacrosanct legislative filibuster. If Democrats win, Reid is promising to skip straight to that ultimate detonation.

Now you want to do the very thing you railed against just a few short years ago.

For PARTISAN politics!

You fucking people are absolutely batshit crazy!

 

[Vidi]

They should have nuked the fillibuster when they had control, like they talked about. The fact they didnt only goes to show that this is just another election year tactic by career politicians to promise but never actually come through on those promises.

nuking the filibuster is a shitty idea, and it will not be implemented.

depends on what he means by "nuke"

If he means go back to the old rules where the Senator actually has to be present and speak the entire time Jimmy Stewart style, then Im all for it.

If he means get rid of it completely, then Im against.

But the way it is now, all a senator has to do is indicate their intention to fillibuster and its fillibustered. Screw that. A fillibuster should be a sporting event.

Bernie Sanders did it right. If the rest of them dont have Bernies stamina, then they shouldnt be playing in the big leagues.

 

[Sallow]

When the elected representatives of 'We the People' start shitting on the rules that govern them we will have anarchy. In Congress, in the White House, in the Statehouses and in the streets.

I can only hope that there will remain enough of our military who take their oath seriously that we can avoid an all-out civil war.

When the anarchists come rioting down YOUR street will you fight them? Or join them?

This is a serious question, and the future of this nation may depend on your answer.

The filibuster isn't in the constitution. It's an arbitrary rule set up by the Senate. And it was meant to be used on in very dire situations. It was never meant to be BAU.

 

[Sallow]

They should have nuked the fillibuster when they had control, like they talked about. The fact they didnt only goes to show that this is just another election year tactic by career politicians to promise but never actually come through on those promises.

nuking the filibuster is a shitty idea, and it will not be implemented.

depends on what he means by "nuke"

If he means go back to the old rules where the Senator actually has to be present and speak the entire time Jimmy Stewart style, then Im all for it.

If he means get rid of it cvompletely, then Im against.

But the way it is now, all a senator has to do is indicate their intention to fillibuster and its fillibustered. Screw that. A fillibuster should be a sporting event.

Bernie Sanders did it right. If the rest of them dont have Bernies stamina, then they shouldnt be playing in the big leagues.

I am for that..and a set limit.

Like no more then 50 in one year.

 

[Vidi]

I notice all you cheerleaders totally ignored THIS...

Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005

Keep in mind that this was all in response to a limited anti-filibuster maneuver (ultimately averted by the Gang of 14), which would have required a simple majority only for judicial appointments. After all, Article II of the Constitution says that the president "shall appoint" members of the judiciary, with merely the"advice and consent" of the Senate. James Madison had argued that a super-majority should be required to block such an appointment. The most relevant quote in the montage comes from California's Diane Feinstein:


"It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then, legislation."


Democrats vociferously objected to the judicial nuclear option a few years ago because it could open the door to the unthinkable: Doing away with the sacrosanct legislative filibuster. If Democrats win, Reid is promising to skip straight to that ultimate detonation.

Now you want to do the very thing you railed against just a few short years ago.

For PARTISAN politics!

You fucking people are absolutely batshit crazy!

Way to jump all over a clearly as yet undefined issue and have a chicken little partisan monkey slinging his own feces response.

Check with your doctor. The medication is having side effects.

 

[L.K.Eder]

They should have nuked the fillibuster when they had control, like they talked about. The fact they didnt only goes to show that this is just another election year tactic by career politicians to promise but never actually come through on those promises.

nuking the filibuster is a shitty idea, and it will not be implemented.

depends on what he means by "nuke"

If he means go back to the old rules where the Senator actually has to be present and speak the entire time Jimmy Stewart style, then Im all for it.

If he means get rid of it cvompletely, then Im against.

But the way it is now, all a senator has to do is indicate their intention to fillibuster and its fillibustered. Screw that. A fillibuster should be a sporting event.

Bernie Sanders did it right. If the rest of them dont have Bernies stamina, then they shouldnt be playing in the big leagues.

oh yeah, they should stand there and read the telephone book, that shows CONVICTION.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is going to being fighting anyone in a civil war.

If American terrorists try to start something, their neighbors will take them and put them against the wall.

End of trouble.

When the elected representatives of 'We the People' start shitting on the rules that govern them we will have anarchy. In Congress, in the White House, in the Statehouses and in the streets.

I can only hope that there will remain enough of our military who take their oath seriously that we can avoid an all-out civil war.

When the anarchists come rioting down YOUR street will you fight them? Or join them?

This is a serious question, and the future of this nation may depend on your answer.

 

[GuyPinestra]

When the elected representatives of 'We the People' start shitting on the rules that govern them we will have anarchy. In Congress, in the White House, in the Statehouses and in the streets.

I can only hope that there will remain enough of our military who take their oath seriously that we can avoid an all-out civil war.

When the anarchists come rioting down YOUR street will you fight them? Or join them?

This is a serious question, and the future of this nation may depend on your answer.

The filibuster isn't in the constitution. It's an arbitrary rule set up by the Senate. And it was meant to be used on in very dire situations. It was never meant to be BAU.

And my point is that power shifts, and what protects the minority now will also protect the majority when THEY become the minority.

Unless you're all good with throwing the whole thing in the shitter and going directly to one party rule, that is...