Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

 

[Trajan]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

so the phony moderate speaks up again,

I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

 

[007]

So if the Republicans had gone ahead done this in 2005 as they thought about but did not do when the Democrats were blocking President Bush's nominations the left here would have been fine with it?

Evidently all the leftards HERE would have thought it was WONDERFUL.

If not... well then their partisan HACKERY would be GLARING.

 

[Old Rocks]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

Jake, you are talking sanity in the political process. Something the present GOP is resisting with all their might. I hope people like you win out in the end, as we need at least two strong parties that are sane.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

The GOP now has full permission and public opinion air cover to repeal the legislative filibuster.

Great point candycorn ... But it may be a little too hasty to call that a done deal when the opportunity arises.

Where it is entirely possible that the current Republican party may be drawn into such an endeavor ... There is always the chance that some Conservatives appreciate the fact that bi-partisan support for legislative actions is a good idea.
In attempts to protect the integrity of Congress and its ability to produce legislation that serves the better good of all Americans ... I could see Conservatives like myself shooting ourselves in the foot with that option.

That's what happens when you have principles you believe are worth standing for ... And when simply winning for the sake of winning (although certainly more productive in the current atmosphere) ... Is not acceptable.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

so the phony moderate speaks up again,

I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

In other words, at this time, and on this issue, it is your ox that has been gored.

In politics, as in other arenas in life, one should pick their fights carefully, not waste time flaring at every imagined pinprick. The GOP choose to filibuster every appointee. They choose to fight every single appointment as a political issue, no matter how apolitical the post. So now the inevitable has happened. A rule change that gives the President the ability to make all of the appointments that he desires. Did you people not see this coming? Are you truly that blind and stupid?

 

[Geaux4it]

We are becoming more like the countries/enemies we fought to avoid this type of rule from Washington.

Maybe Nikita Khrushchev was right.

-Geaux

We will take America without firing a shot…….We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within. Nikita Khrushchev

 

[Geaux4it]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

Jake, you are talking sanity in the political process. Something the present GOP is resisting with all their might. I hope people like you win out in the end, as we need at least two strong parties that are sane.

Please..... Not going to happen

-Geaux

 

[dblack]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

so the phony moderate speaks up again,

I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

In other words, at this time, and on this issue, it is your ox that has been gored.

In other other words - there's going to be a lot more ox-goring. 'Cause you know, government needs more power to ram shit through. The pubs are going to love this when they get back in and start appointing judges to undo Roe. vs Wade. Way to go Reidster!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

You mean work with the guy who called us "the enemy"?

My new definition of working with the biggest liars in American history is to accept nothing less than their Unconditional Surrender. Reid can be a fulltime drug mule

 

[Polk]

Please.

Let me educate you:



That is the part of your post I was addressing. I study senate procedure, Polk. To insist that a filibuster was possible before 1806 is absurd. The aspect of protecting minority rights from majority oppression was known well before the Senate amended it's rules. Now, I suggest you stop looking for faults that don't exist, Polk.

Now you're just lying. The part of my post that you left out stated they did not use the filibuster. It's the very last thing in the post. Your post begins with "Uh yeah, they did."

You also don't understand Senate procedure. Before 1806, a member could call a question to vote. Only a simple majority was required to do so. It is impossible to filibuster in a legislative body were that motion exists. You stand up to start running your mouth and the chair just calls a vote on the motion to proceed.

Wow seriously? Now you call me a liar? Ad hominem signals the death of any argument. You assumed to know what was going through my mind when I replied to your post.

When I quoted Jefferson, I was referring to majority rule minority rights. Now, when I caught that particular section of your post, I cited the year which Jefferson made that quote, in the year 1801. As I have proven, the concept of a filibuster was known (perhaps not by that name) and theorized upon after Aaron Burr removed a rule in the the Senate which allowed the Senate to "move to the previous question" in 1789. Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. That paved the road for the use of what we now know as a filibuster. In 1806 the Senate agreed with Burr and recodified the rules, making it possible for the Senators to use a filibuster. As we now know, the first filibuster was used in 1837.

Be quiet you unnatural noise!

I didn't make an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem would to say that you're a conservative, therefore you're a liar. I said your statement was a lie, because it was a lie. That's an attack on the argument, not on you as a person.

 

[Polk]

If you would ever read the Federalist papers, you'd know how wrong you are, Polk:

"If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated."

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.22, 1787

"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."

James Madison, Federalist No.58, 1788

"No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. ... The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided."

-Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual of Parliamentary procedure, 1801

In Federalist 22, Hamilton was arguing that in the requirement for a supermajority it allows a minority to delay legislation improperly and force unpopular compromises. In Federalist 58, Madison argues that the supemajority rule empowers the minority, and therefore could lead to the enforcement of unfair compromises. Jefferson first argues in his manual of Parliamentary procedure that no senator can speak for longer than necessary. Later, he argues that simple majority rule (lex majoris partis) is the basic guiding principle for legislative votes. While these were arguments against the filibuster, the concept was indeed known of and debated upon as early as 1787.

Polk, you aren't even in my league.

I wouldn't want to be in your middling league, noting that you're incapable of telling the difference between minority rights in the abstract and a specific mechanism for protecting minority rights.

 

[Polk]

Reid did it to Bush and now he doesn't like it being done to Barry. Ever hear of the phrase "litmus test"?



But this is predictable.

Democrats have to get their way or they just go around the rules.

Except Reid didn't do it to Bush. Only a certain subset of nominees were blocked under Bush. All nominees have been blocked by this process.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.



This is a good move by the Dems.



We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.



If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

so the phony moderate speaks up again,



I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

In other words, at this time, and on this issue, it is your ox that has been gored.



In politics, as in other arenas in life, one should pick their fights carefully, not waste time flaring at every imagined pinprick. The GOP choose to filibuster every appointee. They choose to fight every single appointment as a political issue, no matter how apolitical the post. So now the inevitable has happened. A rule change that gives the President the ability to make all of the appointments that he desires. Did you people not see this coming? Are you truly that blind and stupid?

Oh great and knowing One, could you please point out when you predicted this? No sorry if nobody saw the first step to tearing down our republic and giving the power to the uneducated masses swooned by ideological issues misrepresented by a handful of power hungry elites. Other than that we expected everything to play out as normal. As a republic government.

 

[Geaux4it]

Amelia and dblack skirted the matter that we don't have moderates willing in the GOP to work with the Dems.

This is a good move by the Dems.

We Pubs will certainly do it when we get the Senate back. Hopefully, the Dems will have moderates that are willing to work with the Pubs so we don't have this nonsense going on.

If we had been willing to work with the Dems, it would have been 3 judgeships not the 93 that will shape the judicial bench for a lifetime thanks to our intransigence.

so the phony moderate speaks up again,

I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

Did you people not see this coming? Are you truly that blind and stupid?

Yes, with Obama, all things are possible when you rule instead of govern

-Geaux

 

[Edgetho]

Reid did it to Bush and now he doesn't like it being done to Barry. Ever hear of the phrase "litmus test"?



But this is predictable.

Democrats have to get their way or they just go around the rules.

Except Reid didn't do it to Bush. Only a certain subset of nominees were blocked under Bush. All nominees have been blocked by this process.

Say what?

Of 200 nominations, 180 of them have gone through

As of March 2013, President Barack Obama has nominated over two hundred individuals for federal judgeships. Of these nominations, Congress confirmed just over one hundred eighty judgeships (173 during 111th & 112th Congresses [1] and 9 during the 113th Congress [2]). Of the outstanding 87 Court Vacancies, 25 Nominees were pending Congressional review and 62 were awaiting Presidential nomination.[3]

As of July 30, 2012, six of the filibusters have been brought to a cloture vote. Three cloture votes were successful in breaking the filibusters, while the cloture votes on the nominations of Goodwin Liu, Caitlin Halligan and Robert E. Bacharach failed. Many nominations expired with the adjournment of the 111th Congress, but all were renominated in the 112th Congress with the exception of Robert Chatigny. NPR commented on the pattern of delay for certain nominees in an August 4, 2011 article, stating that "Some of the longest waiting nominees, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Charles Bernard Day of Maryland and Edward Dumont of Washington happen to be black or openly gay".[4] The nominations of Day and DuMont were eventually withdrawn.

Senator Grassley commented more nominees could have been confirmed had President Obama respected recess appointment precedent by not making recess appointments while the Senate is in session.[5] Although President Obama has never used a recess appointment to appoint a nominee to the federal bench, he had appointed some executive agency officials in January 2012.

As a response to the continuing blocking of several of President Obama's nominees, Sen. Harry Reid on November 21, 2013 invoked the so-called Nuclear option and changed the Senate rules, meaning a simple majority vote will suffice for all nominees except for the Supreme Court.[6]

 

[candycorn]

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

The GOP now has full permission and public opinion air cover to repeal the legislative filibuster.

Great point candycorn ... But it may be a little too hasty to call that a done deal when the opportunity arises.

Where it is entirely possible that the current Republican party may be drawn into such an endeavor ... There is always the chance that some Conservatives appreciate the fact that bi-partisan support for legislative actions is a good idea.
In attempts to protect the integrity of Congress and its ability to produce legislation that serves the better good of all Americans ... I could see Conservatives like myself shooting ourselves in the foot with that option.

That's what happens when you have principles you believe are worth standing for ... And when simply winning for the sake of winning (although certainly more productive in the current atmosphere) ... Is not acceptable.

.

Principled Republicans....Principled Democrats

I think one is as rare as the other. In the face of political expediency; no contest, expediency wins. Look at this dog and pony show Issa is putting on about the fumbled health care act roll out.

I appreciate your optimism but have to giggle if you think there won't be payback.

 

[Polk]

Comparing the raw numbers paints an inaccurate picture, because there are far more vacancies today than there were during the comparable points in the Bush administration.

 

[Redfish]

This change makes the senate nothing but an extension of the house. The senate was supposed to be a higher body that moved more slowly and carefully.

This change is bad for the future of the USA.

 

[Polk]

This change makes the senate nothing but an extension of the house. The senate was supposed to be a higher body that moved more slowly and carefully.

This change is bad for the future of the USA.

Even with this change, the Senate is not "an extension of the House". It's still a body that gives disproportionate weight to trees and rocks over people.