Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Synthaholic]

Alito wasn't filibustered, but there was a token attempt (72-25) at a filibuster. It was more a protest vote. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully filibustered.

Ahh, so not only can't Trajan answer my question, he has to lie in his deflection.

Got it!

a "token attempt "at a filibuster isn't really a filibuster please...here , you're a politifact fan-

Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

PolitiFact | Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

And now Democrats are admitting that Team Mitch was correct, and has changed the rule.

What's the problem?


Mitch McConnell Once Supported Changing The Filibuster With Just 51 Votes

As Senate whip in 2005, Mitch McConnell helped leader the Senate Republican effort to change the filibuster rules.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This will encourage both parties to work together.

IDK. The Right has moved so far to the right that they actually pride themselves on not even talking to the opposition.

Yes, we all realize that the desire for freedom, limited government, balanced budgets and low taxes are really extreme positions.

Some of us are so extreme that we believe spending hundreds of million of dollars on a friggin website is obscene proof of the lack of perspective and gross incompetence of big government. Not ot mention the utter stupidity of the liberals put in charge of such a program.

Others of us are so extreme that we actually believe that it is possible to provide health care insurance for 30 million people without screwing up the coverage of the 180 million that already have coverage.

No need to even delve into the idiocy of tossing more $billions down the tubes trying to force green energy into reality.

There’s nothing extreme concerning such positions, what’s extreme is the right’s refusal to afford freedom to all Americans and limit government to ensure all citizens realize their civil liberties. When conservatives seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, or women their privacy rights, for example, they cease to be advocates of freedom, and become instead agents of expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the people.

And when conservatives pursue balanced budgets and tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy, predicated on the fallacy of ‘trickle down’ economics, they exhibit the naïve, unrealistic nature of failed rightwing fiscal policy, where the most vulnerable of our society, through no fault of their own, are subject to needless economic hardship, the consequence of conservatives adhering blindly to dogma, as opposed to objective facts and evidence.

 

[Synthaholic]

Did you mean Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist?


"I believe that we need to restore the over 200-year tradition and precedent of allowing every nominee of the president who has majority support an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. It’s consistent with the Constitution, where we are as a body to give advice and consent and the only way we can give advice and consent is an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."

Read more: Transcript - Washington Times
Follow us: @Washtimes on Twitter

Republicans were for the nuclear option before they were against the nuclear option.

thats right, aand so....ever hear the term; "you don't get a little pregnant"?...the difference is they didn't use it, Reid did, see how that works?

And McConnell promised less than a year ago to only allow a filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances".

He has not claimed that this is one of those, because he would then have to back it up. He would rather everyone just believe he didn't keep his word.

 

[Amelia]

The Obama administration team argued in court that it was a tax. Why were they arguing it was a tax when Obama swore it wasn't? Obama knew it wouldn't have been made law if it were deemed a tax but he let his justice team argue that it was to try to win the court fight.


There's no way to explain Obama's dishonesty away. He's like the string theory of dishonesty. Takes 10 dimensions or more to try to sort out Obama's dishonesty.

The case can be made that it is a tax, and an equal case can be made that it's a fine.

Roberts saw it as a tax.

Show me where the Solicitor General argued that it was a tax, please.

It's all irrelevant, since there is no fine or tax for not enrolling.

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

Trajan, the federal government did argue that it was a tax. I'm quite certain of that because we were calling them out for the hypocrisy of that at the time.

I don't know about "Solicitor General". I'm not sure of the titles of the people who made the argument on behalf of the government. I just know that people arguing on behalf of the government called it a tax.

I'll try to find a link but not sure how long that will take amid all the outrage over Roberts calling it a tax.

 

[Trajan]

Ahh, so not only can't Trajan answer my question, he has to lie in his deflection.

Got it!

a "token attempt "at a filibuster isn't really a filibuster please...here , you're a politifact fan-

Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

PolitiFact | Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

And now Democrats are admitting that Team Mitch was correct, and has changed the rule.

What's the problem?


Mitch McConnell Once Supported Changing The Filibuster With Just 51 Votes

As Senate whip in 2005, Mitch McConnell helped leader the Senate Republican effort to change the filibuster rules.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INpeklsK6oA]When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster - YouTube[/ame]

what does that have to do with this string of posts?

you made a comment here I answered it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8194780-post1347.html

if you're confused I can certainly understand that

I know the gop whined when they were getting hosed with filibusters etc...and?

 

[Trajan]

The case can be made that it is a tax, and an equal case can be made that it's a fine.

Roberts saw it as a tax.

Show me where the Solicitor General argued that it was a tax, please.

It's all irrelevant, since there is no fine or tax for not enrolling.

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

Trajan, the federal government did argue that it was a tax. I'm quite certain of that because we were calling them out for the hypocrisy of that at the time.

I don't know about "Solicitor General". I'm not sure of the titles of the people who made the argument on behalf of the government. I just know that people arguing on behalf of the government called it a tax.

I'll try to find a link but not sure how long that will take amid all the outrage over Roberts calling it a tax.

uhmmmm, well I don't recall that, if they mentioned it if my memory serves it was tangentially...they were banking on the commerce clause. *shrugs*

 

[Bloodrock44]

The Obama administration team argued in court that it was a tax. Why were they arguing it was a tax when Obama swore it wasn't? Obama knew it wouldn't have been made law if it were deemed a tax but he let his justice team argue that it was to try to win the court fight.


There's no way to explain Obama's dishonesty away. He's like the string theory of dishonesty. Takes 10 dimensions or more to try to sort out Obama's dishonesty.

The case can be made that it is a tax, and an equal case can be made that it's a fine.

Roberts saw it as a tax.

Show me where the Solicitor General argued that it was a tax, please.

It's all irrelevant, since there is no fine or tax for not enrolling.

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

He is not correct [MENTION=23905]Trajan[/MENTION] The solicitor general did argue it as a tax according to the American Barristers Association:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uoHABw&usg=AFQjCNHRVVj7m6JsY8_ABvuthtiGAZRsYA

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli cited the taxing power in the administration's third backup argument, according to Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog. The first was that the law could be enacted under the commerce clause, and the second was that it was authorized under the necessary and proper clause

 

[Synthaholic]

If only Obama had nominated less Radically Left Wing Judges, Judges more acceptable to the Mainstream, then they wouldn't have been held up.

But no.. Obama had to nominate Left Wing Radicals who want push their Socialist agenda through the Courts instead of applying the Constitution as it was written.

As usual, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

No Republican Senators had any issues with these three nominations, other than political, to keep the court at a 4-4 tie.

 

[rdean]

Oh, these Democrats make me so angry. Haven't they learned that it's only Republicans who can change the rules. Only Republicans can create massive deficits. Only Republicans who can take the country into war. Doesn't matter if the reason is only imagined, it's the Republican God given right to "lead the country". Any way they see fit. Hello, the country was started by white people by wiping out the Indian population. If God didn't want that to happened, he would have protected the Indians. And Republicans have worked hard to keep that 90% to 10% (of tokens) balance that gives them enough of a sliver of "other" they feel comfortable saying, "We aren't racist". Only their policies are.

Only Republicans have the right to create scandals out of nothing and blame their scandals on others.

 

[Dot Com]

IDK. The Right has moved so far to the right that they actually pride themselves on not even talking to the opposition.

Yes, we all realize that the desire for freedom, limited government, balanced budgets and low taxes are really extreme positions.

Some of us are so extreme that we believe spending hundreds of million of dollars on a friggin website is obscene proof of the lack of perspective and gross incompetence of big government. Not ot mention the utter stupidity of the liberals put in charge of such a program.

Others of us are so extreme that we actually believe that it is possible to provide health care insurance for 30 million people without screwing up the coverage of the 180 million that already have coverage.

No need to even delve into the idiocy of tossing more $billions down the tubes trying to force green energy into reality.

There’s nothing extreme concerning such positions, what’s extreme is the right’s refusal to afford freedom to all Americans and limit government to ensure all citizens realize their civil liberties. When conservatives seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, or women their privacy rights, for example, they cease to be advocates of freedom, and become instead agents of expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the people.

And when conservatives pursue balanced budgets and tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy, predicated on the fallacy of ‘trickle down’ economics, they exhibit the naïve, unrealistic nature of failed rightwing fiscal policy, where the most vulnerable of our society, through no fault of their own, are subject to needless economic hardship, the consequence of conservatives adhering blindly to dogma, as opposed to objective facts and evidence.

Ryan (R) just said in his interview w/ that he's not open to eliminating any tax loopholes in the upcoming budget talks either

C-SPAN Radio Schedule | C-SPAN

4:50pm (ET)
Wall Street Journal CEO Council: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

From November 19, 2013.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm in favor of this.

The Republicans have abused the filibuster. Half of all the judicial filibusters have occurred over the past 4.5 years. That's ridiculous.

Not like the far left abused it when the Republicans were in charge.

Now the far left can just have their way without any opposition, just like trying to pass Obamacare.

Nonsense.

There will still be opposition.

The only difference now is that republicans will be required to base their opposition to a given measure or nominee based on the factual merits of that measure or nominee, not solely that the measure was proposed by Senate democrats, or the nominee nominated by a democratic president.

 

[Trajan]

The case can be made that it is a tax, and an equal case can be made that it's a fine.

Roberts saw it as a tax.

Show me where the Solicitor General argued that it was a tax, please.

It's all irrelevant, since there is no fine or tax for not enrolling.

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

He is not correct [MENTION=23905]Trajan[/MENTION] The solicitor general did argue it as a tax according to the American Barristers Association:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uoHABw&usg=AFQjCNHRVVj7m6JsY8_ABvuthtiGAZRsYA

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli cited the taxing power in the administration's third backup argument, according to Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog. The first was that the law could be enacted under the commerce clause, and the second was that it was authorized under the necessary and proper clause

got me there, my apologies Amelia et al...nice find.

 

[Amelia]

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

Trajan, the federal government did argue that it was a tax. I'm quite certain of that because we were calling them out for the hypocrisy of that at the time.

I don't know about "Solicitor General". I'm not sure of the titles of the people who made the argument on behalf of the government. I just know that people arguing on behalf of the government called it a tax.

I'll try to find a link but not sure how long that will take amid all the outrage over Roberts calling it a tax.

uhmmmm, well I don't recall that, if they mentioned it if my memory serves it was tangentially...they were banking on the commerce clause. *shrugs*

I remember it because I was whomping mad about the hypocrisy. I still don't have a direct link citing the argument as it was being made but I found this article from before the John Roberts decision acknowledging that it was made and saying it should prevail.

The Health-Care Mandate Is Clearly a Tax—and Therefore Constitutional - Jack M. Balkin - The Atlantic

....

From the very beginning of the litigation over the ACA, the Justice Department has made the tax power argument. It is the argument favored by many legal academics, including yours truly. (I joined an amicus brief devoted solely to the tax issues). But it has gotten no love from the federal courts. Only one judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals spoke in favor of the argument, and even that court actually dismissed the case on a different ground based on the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (about which more later).

....

Edit: I see Bloodrock already settled this. Thanks B!

 

[Trajan]

Alito wasn't filibustered, but there was a token attempt (72-25) at a filibuster. It was more a protest vote. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully filibustered.

Ahh, so not only can't Trajan answer my question, he has to lie in his deflection.

Got it!

a "token attempt "at a filibuster isn't really a filibuster please...here , you're a politifact fan-

Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

PolitiFact | Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

I'm in favor of this.

The Republicans have abused the filibuster. Half of all the judicial filibusters have occurred over the past 4.5 years. That's ridiculous.

Not like the far left abused it when the Republicans were in charge.

Now the far left can just have their way without any opposition, just like trying to pass Obamacare.

Nonsense.

There will still be opposition.

The only difference now is that republicans will be required to base their opposition to a given measure or nominee based on the factual merits of that measure or nominee, not solely that the measure was proposed by Senate democrats, or the nominee nominated by a democratic president.

oh right, you mean, like this?

 

[Dot Com]

Amelia "whomping mad" over HC. Remember where Obamacare came from A Republican. A Republican you even were cheerleading.

As to the OP (my OP ) , it has reached 100 pages (thank you people )

 

[HenryBHough]

Of late there are no "democratic" presidents.

Only Democrat Party hacks believing their own role-playing games.

 

[Trajan]

This will encourage both parties to work together.

somehow jake, I just cannot imagine you saying same if the gop had done this, you'd be, imho, like the craven NY Times would be screaming anarchy, extremists etc......killing any sense of bi partisanship ....yada yada...

 

[Amelia]

Now back to unraveling the string theory to try to make sense of Obama's dishonesty.

Will 10 dimensions be enough to reconcile it all?





Reid has a tiny little dimension all of his own, too small to see with the naked eye, but ever hovering around Obama's nether regions.

 

[Trajan]

interesting, the NY Times sees things the minorities way...oh wait.......




Walking in the Opposition's Shoes

Published: March 29, 2005


The Senate will return from Easter vacation with nuclear options on its mind. Republicans seem determined to change the rules so Democrats will no longer be able to stop judicial nominations with the threat of a filibuster. If they're acting out of frustration, it's understandable. In the past we've been frustrated when legislators tried to stop important bills from passing by resorting to the same tactic. The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

snip-

The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode Island, Maine or Iowa know that their constituents are given a far larger say than people from New York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has two votes, regardless of population. Indeed, as a recent New Yorker article pointed out, the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed.

While the filibuster has not traditionally been used to stop judicial confirmations, it seems to us this is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process.

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

more at-
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html?_r=0

 

[Synthaholic]

The Obama administration team argued in court that it was a tax. Why were they arguing it was a tax when Obama swore it wasn't? Obama knew it wouldn't have been made law if it were deemed a tax but he let his justice team argue that it was to try to win the court fight.


There's no way to explain Obama's dishonesty away. He's like the string theory of dishonesty. Takes 10 dimensions or more to try to sort out Obama's dishonesty.

The case can be made that it is a tax, and an equal case can be made that it's a fine.

Roberts saw it as a tax.

Show me where the Solicitor General argued that it was a tax, please.

It's all irrelevant, since there is no fine or tax for not enrolling.

I beleive you are right, they didn't argue it as a tax, Roberts came up with that 'view' and way forward on his own.

Obama didn't argue it as a tax either, he nearly bit stephanopoulos's head off when he called it a tax, but he'll gladly take it though, won't he?

call it a mandate, Fee whatever, it was found legal via the tax authority Roberts described it as, has this been wiped out? There is no mandate tax for not enrolling and having the appropriate plan etc. via aca? .

Lawrence O'Donnell has been pointing this out for 3 years!



Go to the 5 minute mark:Rewriting Obamacare's mandate | MSNBC


Here is politifact backing that up:PolitiFact | Lawrence O'Donnell says the IRS cannot pursue 'either civil or criminal remedies' for people who don?t purchase health insurance


Here is the relevant paragraph of the ACA:

Here is the PDF link to the law - it's page 131.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf




Any questions?