Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster

[Clementine]

Obama and the Dems would prefer it if there were two separate sets of rules, depending on who is in power. Obama blasted Republicans over raising the debt ceiling, calling it
failure of leadership, but then had a different view when he did it.

It's no different with Reid wanting to change the rules because he's not getting his way, and Obama supports him. Never mind that they condemned changing the rules in the middle of the game before they were in power. Now it's okay.

It's bad enough they sneaked Obamacare through by underhanded tactics. It should be repealed. Now they are carrying on with the rest of their agenda and those damn rules keep getting in their way. They haven't respected our constitution or any other laws that constrain them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they sought to change the rules in this case.

Hypocrites, all of them.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster............

But don’t take our word for it—Reid and President Obama already made the case for keeping the filibuster and the 60-vote rule intact. They argued quite well for it when they were in the Senate minority. Obama said in 2005:

what [the American people] don’t expect, is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet…everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

Now Obama has signaled that he would support Reid’s changes. Reid argues that he just wants to pass Obama’s nominees for Cabinet positions and other agencies, and that the change would not apply to judges who enjoy lifelong appointments. Of course, once the filibuster is changed, it would be difficult to walk back the change.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster
Harry Reid Is At It Again, Trying to Change Senate Filibuster Rules

 

[OriginalShroom]

Time to breakout the videos of Reid and Biden, maybe even Obama, when Republicans were talking about using the "Nuclear Option" for Judicial Nominees the Democrats were blocking.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Harry Reid Then

“If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it… The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington.” – Harry Reid 2005

“Republicans are in power today, Democrats tomorrow. A simple majority can change anything. Mr. President, this is the way it should be. You should not be able to come in here and change willy-nilly a rule of the Senate.” – Harry Reid on Senate floor, May 23, 2005

“I just couldn’t believe that Bill Frist was going to do this. The storm had been gathering all year, and word from conservative columnists and in conservative circles was that Senator Frist of Tennessee, who was the Majority Leader, had decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the filibuster for judicial nominations. And once you opened that Pandora’s box, it was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate.” – Harry Reid in his 2008 book “The Good Fight”

“As long as I am the leader, the answer’s no. I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country.” – Harry Reid on nuclear option, C-SPAN interview, Sept. 12, 2008

Joe Biden, who was a member of the Senate in 2005. "I pray God, when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing [nuclear option]."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UQNdgNvd0gs]God doesnt listen to Joe Biden - Democrat hypocrisy on display - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OriginalShroom]

Here is Obama's position back then when he was a Senator..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAotKsLjBFI]Obama: Oppose Nuclear Option, Protect "Free And Democratic Debate" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Claudette]

I'm sure Reid would like to do that until he's on the losing end of it. Then it would be time for another change.

 

[Missourian]

Let him!

This is a good thing.

Republicans are poised to take over the Senate in 2014, according too liberal prognosticator Nate Silver...

A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year’s elections. Our best guess, after assigning probabilities of the likelihood of a G.O.P. pickup in each state, is that Republicans will end up with somewhere between 50 and 51 Senate seats after 2014, putting them right on the threshold of a majority.​

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup - NYTimes.com

 

[Seawytch]

 

[rightwinger]

Long overdue and needs to apply to all bills

The Senate has shown itself to be incapable of passing the most simple legislation. The Filibuster is to blame. Time to end the archaic practice once and for all.

The Senate has shown itself incapable of using a simple tool meant to be used sparingly on critical issues

 

[rightwinger]

Let him!

This is a good thing.

Republicans are poised to take over the Senate in 2014, according too liberal prognosticator Nate Silver...

A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year’s elections. Our best guess, after assigning probabilities of the likelihood of a G.O.P. pickup in each state, is that Republicans will end up with somewhere between 50 and 51 Senate seats after 2014, putting them right on the threshold of a majority.​

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup - NYTimes.com

More reason to end the filibuster now


Harry Reid is a moron if he believes the Republicans will not change the filibuster rules the minute they have 51 Senators

 

[Sallow]

Obama and the Dems would prefer it if there were two separate sets of rules, depending on who is in power. Obama blasted Republicans over raising the debt ceiling, calling it
failure of leadership, but then had a different view when he did it.

It's no different with Reid wanting to change the rules because he's not getting his way, and Obama supports him. Never mind that they condemned changing the rules in the middle of the game before they were in power. Now it's okay.

It's bad enough they sneaked Obamacare through by underhanded tactics. It should be repealed. Now they are carrying on with the rest of their agenda and those damn rules keep getting in their way. They haven't respected our constitution or any other laws that constrain them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they sought to change the rules in this case.

Hypocrites, all of them.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster............

But don’t take our word for it—Reid and President Obama already made the case for keeping the filibuster and the 60-vote rule intact. They argued quite well for it when they were in the Senate minority. Obama said in 2005:

what [the American people] don’t expect, is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet…everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

Now Obama has signaled that he would support Reid’s changes. Reid argues that he just wants to pass Obama’s nominees for Cabinet positions and other agencies, and that the change would not apply to judges who enjoy lifelong appointments. Of course, once the filibuster is changed, it would be difficult to walk back the change.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster
Harry Reid Is At It Again, Trying to Change Senate Filibuster Rules

He's only doing it for Cabinet appointments.

But he shouldn't.

What he SHOULD do is change the filibuster rules so that anyone who starts a filibuster, has to hold the floor..like Rand Paul.

THAT'S the way it should work.

 

[Sallow]

Let him!

This is a good thing.

Republicans are poised to take over the Senate in 2014, according too liberal prognosticator Nate Silver...

A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year’s elections. Our best guess, after assigning probabilities of the likelihood of a G.O.P. pickup in each state, is that Republicans will end up with somewhere between 50 and 51 Senate seats after 2014, putting them right on the threshold of a majority.​

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup - NYTimes.com

More reason to end the filibuster now


Harry Reid is a moron if he believes the Republicans will not change the filibuster rules the minute they have 51 Senators

They came close.

And that was with more "moderate" Republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

Here is Obama's position back then when he was a Senator..

Obama: Oppose Nuclear Option, Protect "Free And Democratic Debate" - YouTube

Obama: Nuclear Option Not Good For Either Part, About Power Instead Of Democracy - YouTube

Filibuster abuse is nowhere near what it was six years ago

Republicans are registering record numbers of filibusters despite annual assurances by Mitch McConnell that he would reign in the practice

How many times does McConnell have to pull the filibuster football away before Charlie Brown Reid gets wise?

 

[FA_Q2]

Here is Obama's position back then when he was a Senator..

Obama: Oppose Nuclear Option, Protect "Free And Democratic Debate" - YouTube

Obama: Nuclear Option Not Good For Either Part, About Power Instead Of Democracy - YouTube

Filibuster abuse is nowhere near what it was six years ago

Republicans are registering record numbers of filibusters despite annual assurances by Mitch McConnell that he would reign in the practice

How many times does McConnell have to pull the filibuster football away before Charlie Brown Reid gets wise?

And when the crazy republicans take the senate back? It WILL happen, that is a fact. Democrats, no matter how star eyed you are for them, cannot hold government majorities forever.

 

[rightwinger]

Here is Obama's position back then when he was a Senator..

Obama: Oppose Nuclear Option, Protect "Free And Democratic Debate" - YouTube

Obama: Nuclear Option Not Good For Either Part, About Power Instead Of Democracy - YouTube

Filibuster abuse is nowhere near what it was six years ago

Republicans are registering record numbers of filibusters despite annual assurances by Mitch McConnell that he would reign in the practice

How many times does McConnell have to pull the filibuster football away before Charlie Brown Reid gets wise?

And when the crazy republicans take the senate back? It WILL happen, that is a fact. Democrats, no matter how star eyed you are for them, cannot hold government majorities forever.

I am perfectly willing to live with a Republican majority

What I have difficulty with is a Republican minority preventing the Senate from doing its job

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think our system has enough checks and balances in place to survive without the filibuster.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think our system has enough checks and balances in place to survive without the filibuster.

I think that every layer you peel away just leads you to the next layer.

I don’t want an efficient government. A despotism is an efficient government. I want a government that does not coalesce power to a few individuals while denying it to others.

 

[Flopper]

Obama and the Dems would prefer it if there were two separate sets of rules, depending on who is in power. Obama blasted Republicans over raising the debt ceiling, calling it
failure of leadership, but then had a different view when he did it.

It's no different with Reid wanting to change the rules because he's not getting his way, and Obama supports him. Never mind that they condemned changing the rules in the middle of the game before they were in power. Now it's okay.

It's bad enough they sneaked Obamacare through by underhanded tactics. It should be repealed. Now they are carrying on with the rest of their agenda and those damn rules keep getting in their way. They haven't respected our constitution or any other laws that constrain them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they sought to change the rules in this case.

Hypocrites, all of them.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster............

But don’t take our word for it—Reid and President Obama already made the case for keeping the filibuster and the 60-vote rule intact. They argued quite well for it when they were in the Senate minority. Obama said in 2005:

what [the American people] don’t expect, is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet…everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

Now Obama has signaled that he would support Reid’s changes. Reid argues that he just wants to pass Obama’s nominees for Cabinet positions and other agencies, and that the change would not apply to judges who enjoy lifelong appointments. Of course, once the filibuster is changed, it would be difficult to walk back the change.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster
Harry Reid Is At It Again, Trying to Change Senate Filibuster Rules

Neither side really wants to change the filibuster rule. They just use it as a threat which is what is being done now. However, we should get rid of the filibuster. In fact, we never should have had it in the first place. It just makes congress less productive. The idea of the filibuster was to allow any senator to have his say and slow the enactment of legislation down so the Senate had more time consider the issues. Slowing down legislation in the Senate is hardly needed today.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama and the Dems would prefer it if there were two separate sets of rules, depending on who is in power. Obama blasted Republicans over raising the debt ceiling, calling it
failure of leadership, but then had a different view when he did it.

It's no different with Reid wanting to change the rules because he's not getting his way, and Obama supports him. Never mind that they condemned changing the rules in the middle of the game before they were in power. Now it's okay.

It's bad enough they sneaked Obamacare through by underhanded tactics. It should be repealed. Now they are carrying on with the rest of their agenda and those damn rules keep getting in their way. They haven't respected our constitution or any other laws that constrain them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they sought to change the rules in this case.

Hypocrites, all of them.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster............

But don’t take our word for it—Reid and President Obama already made the case for keeping the filibuster and the 60-vote rule intact. They argued quite well for it when they were in the Senate minority. Obama said in 2005:

what [the American people] don’t expect, is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet…everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

Now Obama has signaled that he would support Reid’s changes. Reid argues that he just wants to pass Obama’s nominees for Cabinet positions and other agencies, and that the change would not apply to judges who enjoy lifelong appointments. Of course, once the filibuster is changed, it would be difficult to walk back the change.

Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster
Harry Reid Is At It Again, Trying to Change Senate Filibuster Rules

Neither side really wants to change the filibuster rule. They just use is as a threat which is what is being done now. However, we should get rid of the filibuster. In fact, we never should have had it in the first place. It just makes congress less productive.

Filibuster should be used to slow down legislation and force more discussion

It should not be a means to stop legislation in its tracks and force the Senate into 60 votes for legislation to pass

 

[Sallow]

Obama and the Dems would prefer it if there were two separate sets of rules, depending on who is in power. Obama blasted Republicans over raising the debt ceiling, calling it
failure of leadership, but then had a different view when he did it.

It's no different with Reid wanting to change the rules because he's not getting his way, and Obama supports him. Never mind that they condemned changing the rules in the middle of the game before they were in power. Now it's okay.

It's bad enough they sneaked Obamacare through by underhanded tactics. It should be repealed. Now they are carrying on with the rest of their agenda and those damn rules keep getting in their way. They haven't respected our constitution or any other laws that constrain them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they sought to change the rules in this case.

Hypocrites, all of them.



Reid wants to change rules so simple majority can break filibuster
Harry Reid Is At It Again, Trying to Change Senate Filibuster Rules

Neither side really wants to change the filibuster rule. They just use is as a threat which is what is being done now. However, we should get rid of the filibuster. In fact, we never should have had it in the first place. It just makes congress less productive.

Filibuster should be used to slow down legislation and force more discussion

It should not be a means to stop legislation in its tracks and force the Senate into 60 votes for legislation to pass

Which is why, the rule should be, if you start a filibuster?

No one goes home.