Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[TemplarKormac]

Uh huh and when the Democrats are the minority will they want to change the rules back? Reid and the Democrats would be wise to remember you don't remain the majority forever.

Let them change the rule. Midterms are coming.

To be honest, I don't think republicans will fight to reinstate this rule when they get a majority back.

Republicans aren't getting the majority back.

You can't gerrymander a state.

Republicans didn't pass Obamacare. Looks like they may get that majority after all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The filibuster is a stupid rule.

The Senate just got smarter.

Yes but the leaders (including the President) could have gotten together with the current minority and have chosen a date in the future where the rules would be changed and there would be no more filibustering of appointees and neither side would know who would be in power when the rules changed so nobody could claim a benefit/injury to their cause.

To act unilaterally does improve this body but it's the same thing could have happened when the GOP was in power in the Senate and they didn't do it...

The GOP didn't use the nuclear option because Democrats were not abusing the system. What was happening with the president's nominees was unprecedented. The Teaparty had to be slapped back now not in 2020. The Teaparty in particular will do anything they can think of to delegitimize this president and it's been working.

I think Reid did the right thing and it will help and not hinder the Senate.

How is it 'abusing the system' only if the GOP is doing it? The same Democrats who protested the move by Republicans in 2005 are the same ones now changing the cloture rules in the Senate. Democrats in the Senate are simply chaff blowing to and fro in the wind. Their hearts belong to no certain standpoint, only to views that suit them at any given time.

I also fail to understand how the Tea Party had anything to do with delegitimizing the president. He's done a fairly good job of that on his own.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We're a Republic, not a Democracy:

United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:


Furthermore, it's the Senate, which represents the States equally, regardless of their actual population; your statement would have some ground for argument if you were commenting on the House of Representatives.

Wait, you're a Liberal, which means you won't even read what I wrote

That's right. So many forget that.

The filibuster, as Obama and other Dems once argued, is a needed tool to keep the balance and to ensure all people are represented, not just the majority. Now they are nothing but bullies because they aren't getting their way. Considering the damage they've done already, they need to be stopped.

We are not and never should be a democracy. Remember the famous quote:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

It's no accident that liberals want to be a democracy (only when they are in charge) and they would the people all to be unarmed little lambs that they can control.

Obama's approval rating is pathetically low because he and the Dems have royally fucked up the last 5 years. This move is just more of the same nonsense.

We are and should be a democracy.

Bu thanks for admitting you don't like democracy.

We knew this to be the case, because you keep blocking the vote and gerrymandering the districts.

A republic cannot exist in a democracy. A majority should never be allowed to take away a minorities liberty because the majority says so.

 

[mudwhistle]

Do the Democrat realize they just set themselves up for repealing Obamacare if the GOP takes back the Senate?

Now they don't need a super-majority.

 

[Geaux4it]

The Stanford Law review

Interesting read here. The white paper is written in classic 'layer ease' where both sides of the argument can find what appear to to be equal footing in presenting their case

According to academics, Professor Fisk and Chemerinsky, they state the following.

"Professor Fisk and Chemerinsky then discuss the constitutionality of the filibuster. They first conclude that a judicial challenge of the senate rules that permit it would be justiciable if brought by proper plaintiffs. They then conclude that, although the filibuster itself is not unconstitutional, the senate rule that prevents a majority of a newly elected Senate from abolishing the filibuster is unconstitutional because it impermissibly entrenches the decisions of past Congresses".

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=faculty_scholarship

 

[mudwhistle]

The Stanford Law review

Interesting read here. The white paper is written in classic 'layer ease' where both sides of the argument can find what appear to to be equal footing in presenting their case

According to academics, Professor Fisk and Chemerinsky, they state the following.

"Professor Fisk and Chemerinsky then discuss the constitutionality of the filibuster. They first conclude that a judicial challenge of the senate rules that permit it would be justiciable if brought by proper plaintiffs. They then conclude that, although the filibuster itself is not unconstitutional, the senate rule that prevents a majority of a newly elected Senate from abolishing the filibuster is unconstitutional because it impermissibly entrenches the decisions of past Congresses".

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=faculty_scholarship

Well, they can always take it to court.

 

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GhSKywjnqc]Obama: Nuclear Option Will Increase "Fighting" And "Bitterness" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q6aqw_SfU0]Obama: Nuclear Option Not What Founders Had In Mind, Will Poison Washington - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sarah G]

Do the Democrat realize they just set themselves up for repealing Obamacare if the GOP takes back the Senate?

Now they don't need a super-majority.

This was just for judicial confirmation. Legislative filibuster reform is still to come.

 

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD8onSGOYr4]Obama Statement On Senate Passing Nuclear Option. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Geaux4it]

Of course the Dems have had their share of filibusters,

In 1994 after the Republicans won majority of seats in the House and Senate, the Democrats used the filibuster to block core provisions of the Republicans 'Contract with America' including legislation to reduce civil damage awards and a proposal to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget.

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama is frustrated with "This messy Democracy".......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhNOQPS4CDU]Jay Carney: Obama fully supports nuclear option but will defer to Harry Reid on nuke option - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sarah G]

Obama Statement On Senate Passing Nuclear Option. - YouTube

What he said is true and correct. So, they are serious about getting rid of the filibuster altogether. I don't have a problem with it. Democrats have already discussed whether they'd be ok with it if they are in the minority as well. They are.

 

[mudwhistle]

The media (MSNBC) selling the case for taking away filibusters.....saying that Republicans are afraid of Democracy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUOLR81TzGg]Nuclear Option: Republicans 'Afraid of Democracy' in The Senate - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Geaux4it]

He is indeed the epic 'Whiner in Chief'

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

This move is yet another scam by Democrats.......the people he's whining about have already been approved. This is just an attempt to get the media off of Obamacare.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSywKN-6f-w]Harry Reid and the Senate's 'nuclear option' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[S.J.]

Obama Statement On Senate Passing Nuclear Option. - YouTube

We know he's a two-faced, lying, self-serving piece of shit. The question is, what are we gonna do about it? November 2014 could be his Waterloo.

 

[Geaux4it]

Well, here comes the anti constitutional gun laws.

And so it has begun

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course the Dems have had their share of filibusters,

In 1994 after the Republicans won majority of seats in the House and Senate, the Democrats used the filibuster to block core provisions of the Republicans 'Contract with America' including legislation to reduce civil damage awards and a proposal to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget.

-Geaux

Harry Reid held up every appointment Bush sent to him. The only time Bush got his guy in the job was during recess appointments.

 

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w3K4i_ApUY]Mitch McConnell Trashes Harry Reid As Worst Majority Leader In U.S. Senate's History - YouTube[/ame]