Senate GOP Warns They Will Shut Down The Senate

[Wehrwolfen]

Senate Republicans Warn They Will Shut Down The Senate If Harry Reid Goes Through With Unprecedented Plan To Change Filibuster Rules…​

They better.

Via Politico:


A partisan war is brewing that could bring the government to a screeching halt as early as January — and no, it’s not over the fiscal cliff.

It’s all about the filibuster.

Democrats are threatening to change filibuster rules, in what will surely prompt a furious GOP revolt that could make those rare moments of bipartisan consensus even harder to come by during the next Congress.

Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering: banning filibusters used to prevent debate from even starting and House-Senate conference committees from ever meeting. He also may make filibusters become actual filibusters — to force senators to carry out the nonstop, talkathon sessions.

Republicans are threatening even greater retaliation if Reid uses a move rarely used by Senate majorities: changing the chamber’s precedent by 51 votes, rather than the usual 67 votes it takes to overhaul the rules.

“I think the backlash will be severe,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the conservative firebrand, said sternly. “If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.”

“It will shut down the Senate,” the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO. “It’s such an abuse of power.”​

[excerpt]

Keep reading…

GOP warns of shutdown over filibuster - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

 

[jwoodie]

Due to their expertise at lowering expectations, Democrats can get away with things for which Republicans would be pilloried.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If only addressing the filibuster rules had not become necessary.

Whine away, bitches. Elections have consequences.

 

[g5000]

Lowering the closing of a debate to a simple majority is a constitutional option.

.

 

[lukelk]

If the republicans do so, as the op is suggesting, they will pushbthe rest of the country farther away, so I hope they do so, cause if they do 2014/2016 will be good years.

 

[jwoodie]

Lowering the closing of a debate to a simple majority is a constitutional option.

.

I assume you considered that a legitimate option regarding the Bork nomination for SCOTUS?

 

[g5000]

Lowering the closing of a debate to a simple majority is a constitutional option.

.

I assume you considered that a legitimate option regarding the Bork nomination for SCOTUS?

See those words I used? A "constitutional option." Guess where I got those from?

Journey back in time with me to 2005: Cheney Enters Filibuster Fight, Backing Change in Senate Rules

Vice President Dick Cheney plunged the White House into the judicial confirmation battle today by saying he would support changing the Senate rules to stop the Democrats from blocking judicial nominees. In addition, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority Republican whip, asserted that Republicans now have the votes needed to execute that change.

"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Mr. Cheney told the Republican National Lawyers Association. "The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable," he said of the Democrats' use of the filibuster, threatening to extend debate, to obstruct votes.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, responded by accusing Mr. McConnell of bluffing and President Bush of lying.

"Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules," Mr. Reid said in a statement, referring to a conversation at a breakfast meeting between the president and Congressional leaders. "Now, it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power."

Current Senate rules require 60 votes to close debate on a confirmation, allowing Democrats to thwart the action by mustering 41 votes. Republicans want to lower the threshold for closing debate on all nominations to a simple majority. Democrats call this the nuclear option, while Republicans call this a constitutional option.

"Republicans call this a constitutional option".

Hypocrisy on both sides.

I was going to wait and let the retards defend the positions of their masters on the filibuster issue, but...what the hell.

Both sides hope everyone is too stupid to remember their previous positions on filibusters.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The use of the filibuster requires honest brokers. When the intentions of those using it are politically motivated, it fails us.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Senate Republicans Warn They Will Shut Down The Senate If Harry Reid Goes Through With Unprecedented Plan To Change Filibuster Rules…​

They better.

Via Politico:


A partisan war is brewing that could bring the government to a screeching halt as early as January — and no, it’s not over the fiscal cliff.

It’s all about the filibuster.

Democrats are threatening to change filibuster rules, in what will surely prompt a furious GOP revolt that could make those rare moments of bipartisan consensus even harder to come by during the next Congress.

Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering: banning filibusters used to prevent debate from even starting and House-Senate conference committees from ever meeting. He also may make filibusters become actual filibusters — to force senators to carry out the nonstop, talkathon sessions.

Republicans are threatening even greater retaliation if Reid uses a move rarely used by Senate majorities: changing the chamber’s precedent by 51 votes, rather than the usual 67 votes it takes to overhaul the rules.

“I think the backlash will be severe,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the conservative firebrand, said sternly. “If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.”

“It will shut down the Senate,” the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO. “It’s such an abuse of power.”​

[excerpt]

Keep reading…

GOP warns of shutdown over filibuster - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Couldn't hurt with the idiot running it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lowering the closing of a debate to a simple majority is a constitutional option.

.

I assume you considered that a legitimate option regarding the Bork nomination for SCOTUS?

Bork was rejected 58 to 42.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Senate Republicans Warn They Will Shut Down The Senate If Harry Reid Goes Through With Unprecedented Plan To Change Filibuster Rules…​

They better.

Via Politico:


A partisan war is brewing that could bring the government to a screeching halt as early as January — and no, it’s not over the fiscal cliff.

It’s all about the filibuster.

Democrats are threatening to change filibuster rules, in what will surely prompt a furious GOP revolt that could make those rare moments of bipartisan consensus even harder to come by during the next Congress.

Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering: banning filibusters used to prevent debate from even starting and House-Senate conference committees from ever meeting. He also may make filibusters become actual filibusters — to force senators to carry out the nonstop, talkathon sessions.

Republicans are threatening even greater retaliation if Reid uses a move rarely used by Senate majorities: changing the chamber’s precedent by 51 votes, rather than the usual 67 votes it takes to overhaul the rules.

“I think the backlash will be severe,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the conservative firebrand, said sternly. “If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.”

“It will shut down the Senate,” the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO. “It’s such an abuse of power.”​

[excerpt]

Keep reading…

GOP warns of shutdown over filibuster - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Actually, I think that the fillibuster rules SHOULD be changed.

In the old days, the fillibuster was used sparingly, and the person doing the fillibuster would have to pay a physical price by standing up there and droning on and on, reading from a phone book even, if they wanted to.

Now? All someone has to do is say they will fillibuster the bill (no standing on the floor of the Congress for long periods of time actually doing it anymore), and when that happens, they automatically send the bill up for a supermajority.

If you're gonna fillibuster, do it like they had to back then. A good example of an actual fillibuster was portrayed in the movie "Mr. Smith goes to Washington".

In short...................if someone threatens to fillibuster, make 'em actually do it.

 

[BreezeWood]

no harm to the filibuster if the final vote can be prevented by the 4/10ths +1 minority - they should not be able to prevent the debate and are adolescent to complain about the change.

 

[Wiseacre]

The whole point of the filibuster rules was to preclude a simple majority from running over the minority position. If the democrats go this route they'll be setting a precedence that the repubs will follow when they get a majority. What goes around come around, democrats should not assume that day will never come. Other thing is, they'll have no cover if the legislation they pass doesn't work out too well.

 

[rightwinger]

Senate Republicans Warn They Will Shut Down The Senate If Harry Reid Goes Through With Unprecedented Plan To Change Filibuster Rules…​

They better.

Via Politico:


A partisan war is brewing that could bring the government to a screeching halt as early as January — and no, it’s not over the fiscal cliff.

It’s all about the filibuster.

Democrats are threatening to change filibuster rules, in what will surely prompt a furious GOP revolt that could make those rare moments of bipartisan consensus even harder to come by during the next Congress.

Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering: banning filibusters used to prevent debate from even starting and House-Senate conference committees from ever meeting. He also may make filibusters become actual filibusters — to force senators to carry out the nonstop, talkathon sessions.

Republicans are threatening even greater retaliation if Reid uses a move rarely used by Senate majorities: changing the chamber’s precedent by 51 votes, rather than the usual 67 votes it takes to overhaul the rules.

“I think the backlash will be severe,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the conservative firebrand, said sternly. “If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.”

“It will shut down the Senate,” the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO. “It’s such an abuse of power.”​

[excerpt]

Keep reading…

GOP warns of shutdown over filibuster - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

If McConnell wasn't abusing his filibuster privileges it would not be necessary

He promised last time to only filibuster critical issues...instead he set filibuster records

make him talk to filibuster

 

[Care4all]

I definitely believe the filibuster rules should be for them to truly filibuster like they did in the old days, which means EXTENDED DEBATE via the minority.... if any minority wants to filibuster, then they should FILIBUSTER via standing up there and giving their side of the story of why they disagree with the majority.

then when the minority is done with their extended debate period, it should take 60 votes to bring it to cloture.

 

[occupied]

If nothing else, a filibuster should require at least one senator to make their case clearly and at length why it is being invoked, there should be some kind of potential personal risk for doing it.

 

[rightwinger]

Filibuster was a quaint custom that Republicans have been abusing

Go back to 51% vote like the Constitution intended

 

[Dick Tuck]

Lowering the closing of a debate to a simple majority is a constitutional option.

.

I assume you considered that a legitimate option regarding the Bork nomination for SCOTUS?

You fucking dimwit. Bork was given a vote, and he lost. In fact, six Republicans voted against the Cox Sacker.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Filibuster was a quaint custom that Republicans have been abusing

Go back to 51% vote like the Constitution intended

And when they lose the majority, who wants to bet they change the rule back just before January of the next year?

Go ahead do it and then when the Republicans have the majority no crying about it from you dumb asses.

 

[rightwinger]

Filibuster was a quaint custom that Republicans have been abusing

Go back to 51% vote like the Constitution intended

And when they lose the majority, who wants to bet they change the rule back just before January of the next year?

Go ahead do it and then when the Republicans have the majority no crying about it from you dumb asses.

They can't...only on the first session Day of the Senate

Let's go for it.......live filibuster or nothing