Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[peach174]

The Nuclear option was first considered during the Bush years with the Republican Majority threatening to use it.

But they did not do it.

The nuclear option was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

This time Reid just wants it his way.
The Dems want those big Government Progressives in Obama's administration no matter what.
To hell with the other half of the country that does not want the government to be in complete control over all of us.

 

[Wolfsister77]

I think this change was long overdue and something has to be done to change the constant gridlock. This is only the first step. Soon, it will apply to Legislation and Supreme Court nominees even if it doesn't now. There is no reason for the Senate to filibuster qualified, competent judicial nominees and cabinet appointments.

It's a start and much needed. A party would still have to take over the House, Senate, and Presidency to really use this to make a big change and then the people can use their voice to vote out the party in power if they don't like it.

Right now Government is dysfunctional and the American people have lost faith in the ability of our Government to function.

So lets see if this changes that perception.

 

[Edgetho]

Excellent piece on the 'constitutional' (aka; nuclear) option.

Kinda technical so I don't recommend it to libturds...


The Nuclear Option, the Law of the Senate and the Conscientious Senator « Point of Order

Levin particularly emphasized the example of Senator Inouye, who, in his maiden speech before the Senate, refused to support a version of the nuclear option to overcome a filibuster of civil rights legislation. (S.259, S.263-64). Levin quoted Inouye’s speech and then said:

Understand what was taking place here. Senator Inouye spoke as the Senate was debating whether to weaken the rights of the Senate minority, so that the Senate majority could end grave injustice by enacting civil rights legislation. Senator Inouye, a man who had himself felt the pain of racial discrimination, even during and after his remarkable service to this nation during World War II, used his first speech on this floor to war against the attempts “to destroy the power of the minority . . . in the name of another minority.”

(S.264).

These are not the only examples of senators who refused to support the nuclear option despite favoring the rules reform or substantive result that it would have accomplished. See generally R. Arenberg & R. Dove, Defending the Filibuster 117-41 (2012). That these senators viewed the existing rules as imposed binding obligation, which they were bound to respect even when contrary to their immediate interests, demonstrates that they saw the law of the Senate from the “internal point of view.” See The Concept of Law 87 (“Hence obligations and duties are thought of as characteristically involving sacrifice or renunciation, and the standing possibility of conflict between obligation or duty and interest is, in all societies, among the truisms of both the lawyer and the moralist.”).

The willingness of these senators to place obligation above interest should enhance confidence in their constitutional judgment. Cf. J. Chafetz, “The Unconstitutionality of the Filibuster,” 43 Conn. L. Rev. 1003, 1031, 1033 & nn. 191 & 205 (2011) (suggesting that legal “statements against interest” should be considered particularly reliable). It should be noted that no senator who supported the use of the nuclear option in the current Congress did so against his or her interest and that there are few, if any, historical examples of a senator doing so.

The Senate’s willingness to place legal obligations and minority rights above immediate majoritarian interests enhances its institutional prestige and strengthens the legitimacy of its legal system. During the January 24 debate on amending the rules, a number of senators stressed the importance of preserving the Senate’s tradition of protecting minority rights, which they viewed as essential to its institutional identity. Even supporters of the nuclear option felt obliged to declare that its use would not make the Senate into a purely majoritarian body. See S.255 (Sen. Harkin) (“We will not become the House.”).

 

[TemplarKormac]

You claimed the filibuster started in 1801. Under Senate rules before 1806, a member could call a question to a floor vote with a simple majority.

Actually, I never said that. The concept was known, but not implemented. I said 1801 because of that quote by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address in 1801. Let's add reading comprehension to the list.

You didn't say it was "known, but not implemented". You directly stated they used it "as early as 1801".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/325610-reid-changing-filibuster-rules-10.html#post8184497

Uh yeah, they did. As early as 1801 they did. If you fancy yourself as some history major, try looking up some facts first.

"They did" was in reference to the last sentence of my previous post:

"The Framers clearly didn't think so, hence why they did not use the filibuster."

You're putting words in my mouth, Polk. That shows your argument is weak.

 

[HenryBHough]

Sad that this irresponsible (and certain to backfire) bit of crap is doing what it was intended to:

Taking the focus off the disaster that is Obamacare.

 

[eflatminor]

What a relief.

What an idiot.

A generation from now, this will be seen as the last nail in the coffin of the Republic. Democracies always end in Oligarchy and Oligarchies always fail. Always.

Well done assholes.

 

[tinydancer]

And that would be different - how, Darkwind?

Tell Me again what was the reason the Democrats and liberals fought so hard to keep this from happening when the GOP was in charge of the Senate?

Link?

Oh you have all your top dogs at this link on video. Hypocrisy from the left knows no bounds.


The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option
Posted November 21, 2013

In 2005, Then-Sen. Barack Obama Called For His Colleagues Considering The Nuclear Option To Think About “Protecting Free And Democratic Debate.”

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country.

I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.” (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Floor Remarks, Washington, DC, 4/13/05)

So much more at the link. Biden, Reid, Clinton.

The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option - GOP

 

[Polk]

Actually, I never said that. The concept was known, but not implemented. I said 1801 because of that quote by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address in 1801. Let's add reading comprehension to the list.

You didn't say it was "known, but not implemented". You directly stated they used it "as early as 1801".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/325610-reid-changing-filibuster-rules-10.html#post8184497

Uh yeah, they did. As early as 1801 they did. If you fancy yourself as some history major, try looking up some facts first.

"They did" was in reference to the last sentence of my previous post:

"The Framers clearly didn't think so, hence why they did not use the filibuster."

You're putting words in my mouth, Polk. That shows your argument is weak.

How I did you words in your mouth? It's a direct quote from your previous post.

 

[rightwinger]

Fine....let's go there

I like the Democrats chances to hold the Senate for the next generation. Let's end filibuster across the board

Agree?

So YOU agree that YOU enjoy, and even SUPPORT tyranny, correct sewerboy?

Elected representative exercising a majority vote has never been tyranny

 

[Amelia]

Actually, let's save some money and abolish Congress altogether.

The Prez has so much power nowadays to run the country by simply claiming that an action is necessary for "national security".
.

Obama would love nothing better than to declare himself King/Dictator. Reid just helped him more.

I don't think so. The Obama administration has burned too many members of the press. Democrats did themselves no favors today. I think they're going to come out of this smelling really bad.

And if Obama uses this as an excuse to choose truly objectionable judges, senators will have to take the case to the media. More bad news for the imperial president. The public is waking up. We still have pride in what we were taught was the right way in our early civics classes. The separation of powers and the filibuster are proud traditions.

Democrats have just pummeled Jimmy Stewart about the head. The public won't like that.

 

[Polk]

The dumbest part about this argument is that even without the filibuster, the Senate is still heavily weighed in favor of (certain) minority interests.

 

[tinydancer]

I hope someone is trying to get a comment from Biden today. This is gold from 2005.

Biden: “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.

The Hypocrisy Is Nuclear: Top Democrat Amnesia On The Nuclear Option - GOP

 

[francoHFW]

Bring back the real filibuster. As far as I'm concerned, anything to make it easier for DEMS to fix the country. Pubs only want to block progress and cut taxes on the rich and their corporations, to the detriment of the nonrich and the country...

 

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats squashing freedom, representation and tradition to get their way, so what's new?

 

[rightwinger]

And now that Democrats have chosen the nuclear option to end filibusters on nominations, they will have no grounds to object if Republicans choose the nuclear option to further curb filibusters when Republicans regain the senate now that Americans are becoming aware of the shocking breadth of Democrat malfeasance.

Well if that's the case......let's end all filibusters right now

Agree? I mean Republicans are going to do it anyway

 

[Polk]

And now that Democrats have chosen the nuclear option to end filibusters on nominations, they will have no grounds to object if Republicans choose the nuclear option to further curb filibusters when Republicans regain the senate now that Americans are becoming aware of the shocking breadth of Democrat malfeasance.

Well if that's the case......let's end all filibusters right now

Agree? I mean Republicans are going to do it anyway

Of course they will. Hell, the stated purpose behind these filibusters was that only Republicans are allowed to appoint judges to the federal bench.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You didn't say it was "known, but not implemented". You directly stated they used it "as early as 1801".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/325610-reid-changing-filibuster-rules-10.html#post8184497



"They did" was in reference to the last sentence of my previous post:

"The Framers clearly didn't think so, hence why they did not use the filibuster."

You're putting words in my mouth, Polk. That shows your argument is weak.

How I did you words in your mouth? It's a direct quote from your previous post.

Sure, but had you been paying any attention, I was referring the concept of minority rule, majority rights, which underpins the the usage of a filibuster. For that, the concept was known as early as 1801 and perhaps as early as 1789.

It wasn't until as you said in 1806 when the Senate recodified their rules to allow for the possibility. Look, I know you're trying very hard to catch me in a contradiction, but you won't.

 

[Contumacious]

Actually, let's save some money and abolish Congress altogether.

The Prez has so much power nowadays to run the country by simply claiming that an action is necessary for "national security".
.

Obama would love nothing better than to declare himself King/Dictator. Reid just helped him more.

I don't think so. The Obama administration has burned too many members of the press. Democrats did themselves no favors today. I think they're going to come out of this smelling really bad.

And if Obama uses this as an excuse to choose truly objectionable judges, senators will have to take the case to the media. More bad news for the imperial president. The public is waking up. We still have pride in what we were taught was the right way in our early civics class. The separation of power and the filibuster are proud traditions.

.

Is a judge who swears to support and defend the Constitution of the welfare/warfare party "truly objectionable"?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?


.

 

[Edgetho]

Fine....let's go there

I like the Democrats chances to hold the Senate for the next generation. Let's end filibuster across the board

Agree?

So YOU agree that YOU enjoy, and even SUPPORT tyranny, correct sewerboy?

Elected representative exercising a majority vote has never been tyranny

That is the precise definition of tyranny.

Majority keeping down a minority.

You got a funny way of looking at things

 

[Polk]

You're putting words in my mouth, Polk. That shows your argument is weak.

How I did you words in your mouth? It's a direct quote from your previous post.

Sure, but had you been paying any attention, I was referring the concept of minority rule, majority rights, which underpins the the usage of a filibuster. For that, the concept was known as early as 1801 and perhaps as early as 1789.

It wasn't until as you said in 1806 when the Senate recodified their rules to allow for the possibility. Look, I know you're trying very hard to catch me in a contradiction, but you won't.

I've already caught you in the contradiction, because it's clear to anyone reading the post that you made that claim. The question is how long you're going to pout instead of just manning up and admitting you made a mistake. My attention isn't the problem. I said the Framers did not use the filibuster, you replied that they did as early as 1801. That may not have been what you meant to say, but it is what you said.