Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Reid goes nuclear in the Senate. Forgets that dems will lose the Senate next year   (thehill.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, Senator McConnell, suspend the rules, senate rules, Senate Parliamentarian, limit debate, Senate GOP, Sheldon Whitehouse, reid  
•       •       •

3500 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2011 at 2:07 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-07 11:46:11 AM  
"Because Sarah said so" is still not valid political analysis.
 
2011-10-07 11:46:42 AM  
What a year. We can get rid of Reid and Obama at the same time.
 
2011-10-07 11:51:32 AM  
Oh LOLly!
 
2011-10-07 11:52:17 AM  
Sure they will.
 
2011-10-07 11:54:50 AM  

What actually happened, in picture form

latimesblogs.latimes.com
I haz this
www.bridgwatercarnival.org.uk
Oh rly?
deskofbrian.com
Well I haz this
www.shoemoney.com
which causes this
70.32.78.224
Now I haz the sad
images.politico.com
 
2011-10-07 12:05:49 PM  
As I pointed out in the other thread, the rule has not been successfully evoked since 1941. It's been 70 years since this rule was actually ever used to do anything other than slow the process down.

The Senate's role as the "saucer" that cools down the House's "tea", doesn't mean that the Senate should be a blast chiller set on full. This particular rule only comes into action after the filibuster process has already been invoked. So it's a delay, on top of another delay. The current filibuster process is enough. That at least gets used.

And to add something new that this article points out, the Senate passed amendments to the rules in an attempt to prevent "filibuster by amendment" more than 30 years ago, and this is going along with that intent. In short, this is a tempest in a teapot, where the actual changes are not objectionable. Reid's method of changing them was perfectly valid. Just as the filibuster by amendment was previous a perfectly legitimate, if completely asinine, way to hold up the passage of a bill, Reid's actions here to get the rule changed is perfectly legitimate.
 
2011-10-07 12:15:10 PM  
That's not the nuclear option.
 
2011-10-07 12:17:54 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: What a year. We can get rid of Reid and Obama at the same time.


You do realize Obama would have to lose to a Republican, right?

Who do you think will defeat Obama? And you should know, if you say "Anyone can beat Obama", it's a sign of mental disease.

In all honesty, without a trace of hyperbole or sarcasm, if you think that, for example, Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain could beat Obama in a general election, I highly recommend you seek professional help. I say this with sincerity as someone who served as a psychologist's assistant for the better part of a decade and has scored and administered countless psychological evaluations.
 
2011-10-07 12:19:49 PM  

GAT_00: That's not the nuclear option.


Did you forget?

Everything the dems do, even if the republicans have done the same thing 1000 times before, is the nuclear option.
 
2011-10-07 12:23:32 PM  

Dan the Schman: jehovahs witness protection: What a year. We can get rid of Reid and Obama at the same time.

You do realize Obama would have to lose to a Republican, right?

Who do you think will defeat Obama? And you should know, if you say "Anyone can beat Obama", it's a sign of mental disease.

In all honesty, without a trace of hyperbole or sarcasm, if you think that, for example, Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain could beat Obama in a general election, I highly recommend you seek professional help. I say this with sincerity as someone who served as a psychologist's assistant for the better part of a decade and has scored and administered countless psychological evaluations.


"Any Republican" has a pretty good chance. Any Republican has less, though.
 
2011-10-07 12:31:32 PM  

Dan the Schman: Who do you think will defeat Obama?


I think if John Huntsman was handed the nomination, he would sweep the floor with the President.
 
2011-10-07 12:49:40 PM  

No YOU'RE a Towel: Dan the Schman: jehovahs witness protection: What a year. We can get rid of Reid and Obama at the same time.

You do realize Obama would have to lose to a Republican, right?

Who do you think will defeat Obama? And you should know, if you say "Anyone can beat Obama", it's a sign of mental disease.

In all honesty, without a trace of hyperbole or sarcasm, if you think that, for example, Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain could beat Obama in a general election, I highly recommend you seek professional help. I say this with sincerity as someone who served as a psychologist's assistant for the better part of a decade and has scored and administered countless psychological evaluations.

"Any Republican" has a pretty good chance. Any Republican has less, though.


I'd be concerned if a generic Republican were running... but these jackasses... no fear at all.
 
2011-10-07 12:49:57 PM  
I'm not overly stupid but TFA made my head hurt. Can I get a simplification from someone who understands what happened?
 
2011-10-07 01:26:31 PM  

dugitman: I'm not overly stupid but TFA made my head hurt. Can I get a simplification from someone who understands what happened?


McConnell tried to use a little trickery with the rules to force a vote on Obama's jobs bill in its original form instead of as the Senate Dems have changed it (which, by the way, Obama has stated he is comfortable with). McConnell's tactic was perfectly within the rules, and the parliamentarian agreed. So Reid appealed the parliamentarian's ruling, which lead to a vote being taken on the rule. Unlike nearly everything else in the Senate, this vote only requires a simple majority to pass. So now the tactic McConnell was using is against the rules.

This is not the "nuclear option" since it only applies to that one specific type of procedure and not a broad category of procedures. It did, however, use the same method of changing the rule as the nuclear option, namely overruling the parliamentarian by a simple majority vote.

Haha, the more I tried to explain this, the less clear it seemed to get.


TL;DR version: McConnell was violating the spirit of the rules, so Reid changed the damn thing so he couldn't do it anymore.
 
2011-10-07 01:32:23 PM  
The nuclear option was referring to getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees.

That is not what was done.

//thought I was going to read about him forcing a vote on the head of the consumer protection agency
//or an actual official Senate recess so there could be a recess appointment
//leaving disappointed
 
2011-10-07 01:41:45 PM  

skinnycatullus: Haha, the more I tried to explain this, the less clear it seemed to get.


Thanks. That's pretty much what got after a 5th reading. Senate procedure is like a political Rube Goldberg machine to me.
 
2011-10-07 01:43:33 PM  
It was a minor rule with no consequence. I wish he had actually gone nuclear.
 
2011-10-07 01:58:08 PM  
Yeah because everyone's convinced that everything is the Dems' fault, right?

i54.tinypic.com
The Treasury Dept. must have a liberal bias.

i51.tinypic.com
p.s. fark you
 
2011-10-07 02:00:40 PM  
They are going to lose the senate? you can see into the future, subby? Can you post this week's powerball numbers?
 
2011-10-07 02:07:54 PM  
I doubt it.
 
2011-10-07 02:11:40 PM  
Too little, too late and shortsighted: The Democratic Party.
 
2011-10-07 02:12:24 PM  
Senate Republicans said Reid is right to worry.

Why? being fake opposition to republican/conservative policies mean you don't bother trying to stop the agenda at all costs.
 
2011-10-07 02:12:57 PM  

ManateeGag: They are going to lose the senate? you can see into the future, subby? Can you post this week's powerball numbers?


The cards are stacked against them, but if the Republicans run people like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, well, the Democrats have a fighting chance.
 
2011-10-07 02:14:59 PM  

Boxcutta: Too little, too late and shortsighted: The Democratic Party.


I always thought it was "Democratic party: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory"
 
2011-10-07 02:15:10 PM  

I Said: GAT_00: That's not the nuclear option.

Did you forget?

Everything the dems do, even if the republicans have done the same thing 1000 times before, is the nuclear option.


So, you're saying the Republicans have done this before?
 
2011-10-07 02:15:19 PM  

Rincewind53: As I pointed out in the other thread, the rule has not been successfully evoked since 1941. It's been 70 years since this rule was actually ever used to do anything other than slow the process down.

The Senate's role as the "saucer" that cools down the House's "tea", doesn't mean that the Senate should be a blast chiller set on full. This particular rule only comes into action after the filibuster process has already been invoked. So it's a delay, on top of another delay. The current filibuster process is enough. That at least gets used.

And to add something new that this article points out, the Senate passed amendments to the rules in an attempt to prevent "filibuster by amendment" more than 30 years ago, and this is going along with that intent. In short, this is a tempest in a teapot, where the actual changes are not objectionable. Reid's method of changing them was perfectly valid. Just as the filibuster by amendment was previous a perfectly legitimate, if completely asinine, way to hold up the passage of a bill, Reid's actions here to get the rule changed is perfectly legitimate.


Lol. You conveniently skipped the part where Reid voted to go against the Senate Parliamentarian by majority vote. This is the nuclear option. They changed no rules they voted to change the meaning of a rule, overturning the parliamentarian. This is unprecedented. It's what the nuclear option is, what the democrats cried about in 2005.
 
2011-10-07 02:16:40 PM  
Good for him. He's years behind, but that's Reid for you.
 
2011-10-07 02:16:46 PM  
The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning
 
2011-10-07 02:16:48 PM  
Harry? Harry, is that you! I hardly recognized you with those balls and that spine!

Well played!
 
2011-10-07 02:18:27 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning


If they did that, it would be the one good thing a republican congress has ever done.

The filibuster is simply a tool to allow asshole senators to take hostages. It needs to be done away with.
 
2011-10-07 02:18:30 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: The nuclear option was referring to getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees.

That is not what was done.

//thought I was going to read about him forcing a vote on the head of the consumer protection agency
//or an actual official Senate recess so there could be a recess appointment
//leaving disappointed


No, it was overturning rules by majority to vote to get rid of the filibuster. The nuclear option was always about changing the meaning of the rule against the Senate parliamentarian's ruling. Reid used it, but on a different senate rule.
 
2011-10-07 02:19:36 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning


If the Republicans really want to kill it, they can do it with a simple majority. On the first day of each legislative session, the rules can be changed with 51 votes.
 
2011-10-07 02:20:32 PM  

Dan the Schman: I'd be concerned if a generic Republican were running... but these jackasses... no fear at all.


Indeed.
 
2011-10-07 02:21:11 PM  

MyRandomName: tallguywithglasseson: The nuclear option was referring to getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees.

That is not what was done.

//thought I was going to read about him forcing a vote on the head of the consumer protection agency
//or an actual official Senate recess so there could be a recess appointment
//leaving disappointed

No, it was overturning rules by majority to vote to get rid of the filibuster. The nuclear option was always about changing the meaning of the rule against the Senate parliamentarian's ruling. Reid used it, but on a different senate rule.


The nuclear option was about voting on the constitutionality of a rule, not to change the meaning of the rule. Basically a Senator says "I'm invoking rule 23-2s subsection X, which allows me to be a self satisfied prick." Another Senator says "I believe that rule is unconstitutional." There is a simple up or down vote on it. If it passes, the rule is discarded, and can't ever come back (because the Senate deems it unconstitutional). That's why it's "the nuclear" option.
 
2011-10-07 02:21:25 PM  
Democrats will never lose the Senate, just like they didn't lose the House.
 
2011-10-07 02:22:03 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning

If the Republicans really want to kill it, they can do it with a simple majority. On the first day of each legislative session, the rules can be changed with 51 votes.


They can do away with it at any time with a simple majority vote in exactly the same manner Harry used right here.
 
2011-10-07 02:23:37 PM  

dugitman: skinnycatullus: Haha, the more I tried to explain this, the less clear it seemed to get.

Thanks. That's pretty much what got after a 5th reading. Senate procedure is like a political Rube Goldberg machine to me.


What really bothers me is that the Senate can change the rules at the start of each session if that is their intention. Changing parliamentary procedures to address a specific hurdle that the minority presents is something that shouldn't happen, especially since the stakes on this are smaller than many other bills they've lived with the rules on before (though the idea of a tariff war is monumentally stupid, which the bill it is attached to would start.)
 
2011-10-07 02:24:26 PM  
When the republicans fail hard next year at electing one of their own to be POTUS, what will they have to show for over the last four years? They have had all this time to accomplish their sole goal of making Obama a 1-term president and they have failed miserably so far - so why should they be trusted with every being anything more than a marginalized party in the future.

/ We need a serious left-wing opposition party to the New Republicans (Democrats)
 
2011-10-07 02:25:21 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning

If the Republicans really want to kill it, they can do it with a simple majority. On the first day of each legislative session, the rules can be changed with 51 votes.


Sounds like the rules can be changed at any time with 51 votes (in the unlikely event I understand TFA correctly).

So far Dems have been reluctant to eliminate the filibuster because then they won't be able to use it when they're the minority (which will certainly happen sooner or later).

This was just eliminating post-filibuster filibusters.
 
2011-10-07 02:26:34 PM  

Rent Party: Cat Food Sandwiches: Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning

If the Republicans really want to kill it, they can do it with a simple majority. On the first day of each legislative session, the rules can be changed with 51 votes.

They can do away with it at any time with a simple majority vote in exactly the same manner Harry used right here.


I believe that could be filibustered.
 
2011-10-07 02:29:30 PM  

Rent Party: Cat Food Sandwiches: Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning

If the Republicans really want to kill it, they can do it with a simple majority. On the first day of each legislative session, the rules can be changed with 51 votes.

They can do away with it at any time with a simple majority vote in exactly the same manner Harry used right here.


The results are the same, but the actual "meaning" would be different. Saying that you need a simple majority to pass a bill this session before anything is voted on is just a change in how the Senate conducts its business. Getting tired of being filibustered, claiming it is unconstitutional, and having a vote to express that filibustering violates the law as it stands is another matter.
 
2011-10-07 02:30:41 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Rent Party: Cat Food Sandwiches: Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning

If the Republicans really want to kill it, they can do it with a simple majority. On the first day of each legislative session, the rules can be changed with 51 votes.

They can do away with it at any time with a simple majority vote in exactly the same manner Harry used right here.

I believe that could be filibustered.


No it can't. It's a procedural rule controlled by the President pro Tem. It is a constitutionality issue, not a legislative one, so it is voted on immediately. That's how Harry could pull this off. He got his guys lined up and said "The next time they pull this shiat, we're getting rid of it outright."

And surprisingly enough, that's exactly what he did.
 
2011-10-07 02:31:30 PM  
I wish they would totally eliminate the filibuster. It's a stupid rule, and I believe a simple majority should carry each vote. This would really drive home the "elections have consequences" message.
 
2011-10-07 02:34:05 PM  

Grungehamster: Rent Party: Cat Food Sandwiches: Dr Dreidel: The tone of the end of TFA does hint that the GOP would be more than willing to actually invoke the nuclear option and kill the filibuster, should they ever get to 60 seats.

Just to piss of the Democrats.

// and I bet they'd do some weaselly crap when they inevitably lost the majority, like vote the filibuster back in as their last order of business before adjourning

If the Republicans really want to kill it, they can do it with a simple majority. On the first day of each legislative session, the rules can be changed with 51 votes.

They can do away with it at any time with a simple majority vote in exactly the same manner Harry used right here.

The results are the same, but the actual "meaning" would be different. Saying that you need a simple majority to pass a bill this session before anything is voted on is just a change in how the Senate conducts its business. Getting tired of being filibustered, claiming it is unconstitutional, and having a vote to express that filibustering violates the law as it stands is another matter.


There is no violation of the law. The Senate has absolute control over the manner in which it conducts it's business. There is no appeal and no other government body may interfere with it. They decide if their rules are unconstitutional by vote. No one can tell them not to.

The nuclear option isn't about changing Senate rules, it's about doing away with a Senate rule in it's entirety. The rule setting at the beginning of the session is how the rule would change. This vote effectively eliminated the rule the GOP was abusing outright.
 
2011-10-07 02:34:48 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Democrats will never lose the Senate, just like they didn't lose the House.


Yes, and we've all seen how much that benefited the country. You really think Repubs are going to keep the House when elections come?
 
2011-10-07 02:35:37 PM  
Subbo thinks that the GOP will get even more seats in the Senate next year.

i235.photobucket.com
 
2011-10-07 02:35:40 PM  
FWTW: this is from wikipedia:

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to end debate.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option, also sometimes called the constitutional option by proponents.
 
2011-10-07 02:39:14 PM  
why didn't Reid start using this two years ago?

ugh, farking democrats.
 
2011-10-07 02:39:20 PM  
Poor butthurt subby.
 
2011-10-07 02:41:01 PM  
Reid now: I have no problem with this.

Reid when Repubs control Senate: EEEEEEVIL Republicans are denying the people their representation and are farking RACISTS who masturbate with guns, kill homosexuals, eat your babies, rape your women and won't suck my cock.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report