Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[TakeAStepBack]

Source of and method of the infographic? Because from my reading, it appears they are deliberately leaving out the nominees that were stalled by democrats and that Bush stopped sending appointment bids to congress over.

 

[Edgetho]

"The administration needs to be able to have the team that he wants in place"...Harry Reid (D). I think you could find similar quotes from the Nazi party in the 30's.

Why are rw'ers always the first ones to break Godwin's Law

Because Nazi's are truly your political forebears.

National SOCIALISTS.

Do some reading. Or have someone read history books to you.

National SOCIALISM is the dimocrap way.

The only difference is the lack of violence up to this point.

And the only reason why is you don't have the power because of the 2nd Amendment.

dimocraps ARE National Socialists.

On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five-Year Plan.…America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.”

“To compare,” Schivelbusch stresses, “is not the same as to equate. America during Roosevelt’s New Deal did not become a one-party state; it had no secret police; the Constitution remained in force, and there were no concentration camps; the New Deal preserved the institutions of the liberal-democratic system that National Socialism abolished.” But throughout the ’30s, intellectuals and journalists noted “areas of convergence among the New Deal, Fascism, and National Socialism.” All three were seen as transcending “classic Anglo-French liberalism”—individualism, free markets, decentralized power.

Idiot

 

[ShawnChris13]

Republicans gridlocking the Senate with 45 votes is a travesty







Filibuster is an archaic tradition meant for exceptional circumstances. Requiring 60 votes for Congress to do its job does not work. Republicans have abused their filibuster privledges....time to take them away

It's a slippery slope we trod when we decide to give majority rule on anything. If this power is removed from the minority party, who knows what similar circumstances will occur resulting in variable happenstance. Filibusters are the best tool for the party that didn't win the elections, and should remain in place.

It was a cute little custom that was rarely invoked. Now, when it is envoked on every law that does not involve renaming a Post Office it is time to abandon it.



If a party can win the Senate, House and Presidency....I have no problem with majority rule



I prefer majority rule to minority rule any day

They don't use it to rename a post office and using that type of argument is a deflection. The minority in no way rules, they only look after their own interests in attempts to block majority rule. Each majority songs a different tune when the balance changes.

 

[Sarah G]

Voting on changing filibuster rules for certain nominees.

 

[martybegan]

How can it backfire? Democrats don't misuse and abuse the filibuster when in the minority. They have nothing to lose if the GOP ever gains the majority again. They will provide LOYAL OPPOSITION AND DISSENT as they are supposed to do.

You assholes are applauding the misuse of the rules now......and you pretend as though you'd be against this rule change if the GOP was having to deal with this kind of bullshit.

Reid should have done this years ago.

LOLOLOLOLOL.

its the tired old "its loyal dissent when we do it, and obstruction when you do it" bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The majority should rule in a democracy.

Get rid of the filibuster forever.

You live in a Republic

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The majority should rule in a democracy.

Get rid of the filibuster forever.

You live in a Republic

No, he lives in never-neverland.

 

[Edgetho]

How can it backfire? Democrats don't misuse and abuse the filibuster when in the minority. They have nothing to lose if the GOP ever gains the majority again. They will provide LOYAL OPPOSITION AND DISSENT as they are supposed to do.

You assholes are applauding the misuse of the rules now......and you pretend as though you'd be against this rule change if the GOP was having to deal with this kind of bullshit.

Reid should have done this years ago.

LOLOLOLOLOL.

its the tired old "its loyal dissent when we do it, and obstruction when you do it" bullshit.

No.

It's a ******* lie.

At least 23 nominations were held up by dimocraps. It got so bad that Bush just stopped nominating people for the Bench.

dimocraps lie, it's what they do.

And they're stupid too.

If they want to present a reasoned argument for why this should be done, I'll be happy to debate it with them.

But they don't. They just simply ******* LIE.

If Reid does get this through, I don't want to hear any bitching from them when we take back the Senate and the White House and put three TOTALLY Anti-Roe Supremes on the Bench.

Watch them cry and belly-ache then.

Think they can get a Constitutional Amendment through to stop it? Me neither. I'd say the odds of that happening are about 1,000 to 1.

Maybe more.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How can it backfire? Democrats don't misuse and abuse the filibuster when in the minority. They have nothing to lose if the GOP ever gains the majority again. They will provide LOYAL OPPOSITION AND DISSENT as they are supposed to do.

You assholes are applauding the misuse of the rules now......and you pretend as though you'd be against this rule change if the GOP was having to deal with this kind of bullshit.

Reid should have done this years ago.

LOLOLOLOLOL.

its the tired old "its loyal dissent when we do it, and obstruction when you do it" bullshit.

No.

It's a ******* lie.

At least 23 nominations were held up by dimocraps. It got so bad that Bush just stopped nominating people for the Bench.
dimocraps lie, it's what they do.

And they're stupid too.

If they want to present a reasoned argument for why this should be done, I'll be happy to debate it with them.

But they don't. They just simply ******* LIE.

If Reid does get this through, I don't want to hear any bitching from them when we take back the Senate and the White House and put three TOTALLY Anti-Roe Supremes on the Bench.

Watch them cry and belly-ache then.

Think they can get a Constitutional Amendment through to stop it? Me neither. I'd say the odds of that happening are about 1,000 to 1.

Maybe more.

And this is why Obama has more appointees taking longer and in limbo than Bush did. They apparently decided to not count the ones that democrats stalled to bring up for discussion and lobbed them over the fence into Obama's court.. Is there any semblence of truth left that hasn't been politiciezed by this administration?

Good god.

 

[Sarah G]

Voting on changing filibuster rules for certain nominees.

Nope, went down along party lines.

 

[rightwinger]

Hmmm, then I guess you support a majority vote in the states on things like gay marriage and gun control?

They have it right now.......I do not support anyones right to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Really? Did the founders vote on the constitution?

There is a difference between voting for what rights ALL Americans can have and voting on the rights that SOME Americans are permitted

And in the case of our founders ...they blew it

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Good.

 

[Sarah G]

Looks like the Democrats are standing together for a change.

 

[Contumacious]

Reid’s threat comes as Senate Republicans blocked – for the third time in three weeks—Obama’s pick, Robert Wilkins, to be a judge on the powerful D.C. Court of Appeals. Reid had a solid majority, but due to GOP’s exploitation of the Senate’s arcane rules, Democrats still fell six votes short of ending debate on Wilkins’ nomination.

Senator Reid (D-USSR) should do the same thing he did to adopt Obama Hellcare.

Convene the Senate on Christmas Eve, during a snowstorm , at 1:00 AM and then SECRETLY nominate another fascist to the "courts".

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Republicans gridlocking the Senate with 45 votes is a travesty

Filibuster is an archaic tradition meant for exceptional circumstances. Requiring 60 votes for Congress to do its job does not work. Republicans have abused their filibuster privledges....time to take them away

Republicans gridlocking the Senate is a God send

 

[Edgetho]

Voting on changing filibuster rules for certain nominees.

Nope, went down along party lines.

No it didn't.

Shit....

Levin, Pryor and Manchin broke ranks.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans gridlocking the Senate with 45 votes is a travesty

Filibuster is an archaic tradition meant for exceptional circumstances. Requiring 60 votes for Congress to do its job does not work. Republicans have abused their filibuster privledges....time to take them away

Republicans gridlocking the Senate is a God send

Republicans:

If we don't get to make the rules....then nobody can

 

[Sarah G]

I think so too. Everything is good for them today, so far. A couple of parlementary questions from Mitch but nothing explosive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For judicial and excutive appts, sure.

I thought Bush should have had the opportunity for up and down votes on these appts.

I gather SCOTUS is still subject to the old rules.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmmm, then I guess you support a majority vote in the states on things like gay marriage and gun control?

They have it right now.......I do not support anyones right to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Really? Did the founders vote on the constitution?

Redfish, you are not a Founder.