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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Good news: A filibuster reform package is likely to pass in the United States Senate. Bad news: It strengthens the ability of the minority party to obstruct legislation   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 86
    More: Fail, United States Senate, Jeff Merkley, Carl Levin, majority party, filibusters, reforms  
•       •       •

2864 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 12:14:57 PM  
The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy - which proponents of a weaker filibuster say defeats the purpose.

That is a truly awful idea.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:45 PM  
 
2013-01-03 12:27:31 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy - which proponents of a weaker filibuster say defeats the purpose.

That is a truly awful idea.


McCain, that maverick, I see that he is still fighting the good fight. Doing everything that he can to reduce pork. no wait, this would increase pork and ....
oh why wont he just curl up and die already??
 
2013-01-03 12:31:34 PM  
I require that we add an amendment to this bill that all your wives be raped!
 
2013-01-03 12:38:04 PM  

James!: I require that we add an amendment to this bill that all your wives be raped!


Yeah, that's about all it would take for a minority party to kill something they don't agree with.
 
2013-01-03 12:46:42 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: James!: I require that we add an amendment to this bill that all your wives be raped!

Yeah, that's about all it would take for a minority party to kill something they don't agree with.


On the other hand it would be hilarious if we had a "rape amendment" problem instead of a filibuster problem.

"Mr. Speaker we need rape amendment reform to stop this gridlock!"
 
2013-01-03 12:50:48 PM  
The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy

Fark no.  This will just mean that the minority party will add poison pills to every piece of legislation that comes through.  Some totally pointless peice of legislation, like the name of a post office in upstate NY will have an amendment to put Reagan on the dime and to make any woman who wants an abortion get a transvaginal ultrasound and carry a sack of flour in a baby bjorn for 10 days.
 
2013-01-03 01:00:18 PM  

BSABSVR: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy

Fark no.  This will just mean that the minority party will add poison pills to every piece of legislation that comes through.  Some totally pointless peice of legislation, like the name of a post office in upstate NY will have an amendment to put Reagan on the dime and to make any woman who wants an abortion get a transvaginal ultrasound and carry a sack of flour in a baby bjorn for 10 days.




If it was limited to one amendment relevant, I could almost understand how they could vote for it. Otherwise it's a damned disaster.
 
2013-01-03 01:08:13 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: BSABSVR: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy

Fark no.  This will just mean that the minority party will add poison pills to every piece of legislation that comes through.  Some totally pointless peice of legislation, like the name of a post office in upstate NY will have an amendment to put Reagan on the dime and to make any woman who wants an abortion get a transvaginal ultrasound and carry a sack of flour in a baby bjorn for 10 days.


If it was limited to one amendment relevant, I could almost understand how they could vote for it. Otherwise it's a damned disaster.


Wait - they're guaranteed to have two amendments inserted into every bill, or guaranteed that at least two amendments would be debated? The former is a disaster, the latter less so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the latter case, you'd still need 51 Senators - on record - supporting the "Draw Dicks on Every Picture of Jimmy Carter" amendment in the first place for it to be added to the Post Office renaming bill.
 
2013-01-03 01:13:56 PM  
from a different article:

The Levin-McCain approach could also have a surprising consequence: Instead of tipping the balance of power toward the majority, it will leave in place the silent filibuster, which requires 60 votes to override, but would allow amendments to be adopted by a simple majority vote.

The proposal guarantees the minority party the possibility of at least two amendments on every bill. If the amendments are germane to the bill, they would be subject to a simple majority vote after debate is closed. Because the vote to close debate has to occur before members of the majority know whether a controversial amendment will be added, they cannot use their cloture power to block the amendments.


so they could still add poison pill amendments, but they'd probably have to be more creative than "no child's behind left unfingered"
 
2013-01-03 01:33:46 PM  
I wish my Senator would step down and live out his life yelling at invisible clouds in the summer sky in Sedona in one of his homes. I wonder how many he has. Someone should ask him.
 
2013-01-03 01:45:06 PM  
So can we refer to it as the "McCain Forced Pork" bill?
 
2013-01-03 02:06:28 PM  
There will be 20 women Senators...when they all sync up, nobody is getting anything done....
 
2013-01-03 02:09:34 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy - which proponents of a weaker filibuster say defeats the purpose.

That is a truly awful idea.


Does he have any other kind?
 
2013-01-03 02:09:44 PM  
Isn't that like saying adding mass to a black hole increases the velocity needed to escape it?
 
2013-01-03 02:09:45 PM  

unlikely: So can we refer to it as the "McCain Forced Pork" bill?


Hey now Mark Foley introduced forced pork before it was cool!
 
2013-01-03 02:12:45 PM  

TheOther: There will be 20 women Senators...when they all sync up, nobody is getting anything done....


if only there were actually any medical/scientific evidence that this happens.
at least according to the resident expert in everything, the straight dope, he pretty much nixed this sync thing, yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony

so yah, pretty much no data and a bunch on anecdotal evidence.
toss in birth control pills which force a 28 day cycle and your studies become even more entertaining.
so you would need a group of college women living together, not on the pill and follow them for 2-4 years?
maybe a mormon college? they would NEVER be on the pill, right?

I guess you could collect the data via a phone app.
HELL, we could start with a small study using these senators !!!
wait, menopause would screw this all up
FARKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
 
2013-01-03 02:13:52 PM  

thomps: from a different article:

The Levin-McCain approach could also have a surprising consequence: Instead of tipping the balance of power toward the majority, it will leave in place the silent filibuster, which requires 60 votes to override, but would allow amendments to be adopted by a simple majority vote."


So it would basically change nothing about the current filibuster then?
 
2013-01-03 02:14:28 PM  
Oh boy! More riders and poison pills. Just exactly what we need.

If anything, we should be reducing the ability to add on irrelevant legislation.
It's a part of the system that's fallen prey to consistent abuse and misuse.
 
2013-01-03 02:15:27 PM  

Dr Dreidel: guaranteed that at least two amendments would be debated?

and voted upon?

This seems more plausible to me but, since I know Reid could f*ck-up a stainless steel ball, I'm fearful.
 
2013-01-03 02:19:14 PM  

unlikely: So can we refer to it as the "McCain Forced Pork" bill?


Forcemeat-McCain-TubeSteak-Pork-Tornado-Extravaganza
 
2013-01-03 02:19:50 PM  

BSABSVR: carry a sack of flour in a baby bjorn for 10 days.


trendland.com
 
2013-01-03 02:22:42 PM  
Jesus tapdancing Christ, JUST MAKE IT LIKE IT USED TO BE. I.E., you have to hold up a vote by speaking for hours on end at large personal inconvenience (and exposure). That way, people will only filibuster if they truly believe in their cause.

WTF is all this amendment garbage? Keep is simple. Just eliminate the goddamn '75 rule and be done with it.
 
2013-01-03 02:24:37 PM  
Why do we need bipartisian legislation to deal with the problem of the minority running roughshod over the majority in the senate? Republicans shouldn't even be at the table for this discussion. The American voters have spoken.

/Levin can eat a bag of dicks as well.
 
2013-01-03 02:25:21 PM  

BSABSVR: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy

Fark no.  This will just mean that the minority party will add poison pills to every piece of legislation that comes through.  Some totally pointless peice of legislation, like the name of a post office in upstate NY will have an amendment to put Reagan on the dime and to make any woman who wants an abortion get a transvaginal ultrasound and carry a sack of flour in a baby bjorn for 10 days.


Yeah, pretty much.

D: "I'd like to propose a bill that, if enacted, would completely eliminate all forms of cancer nationwide within five years."
R: "Great!"
D: "To do so, we'll only have to raise taxes by-"
R: "We're adding the BSABSVR Ultrasound amendment."
 
2013-01-03 02:25:57 PM  

James!: antidisestablishmentarianism: James!: I require that we add an amendment to this bill that all your wives be raped!

Yeah, that's about all it would take for a minority party to kill something they don't agree with.

On the other hand it would be hilarious if we had a "rape amendment" problem instead of a filibuster problem.

"Mr. Speaker we need rape amendment reform to stop this gridlock!"


Rape Party 2016
 
2013-01-03 02:26:44 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Darth_Lukecash: BSABSVR: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy

Fark no.  This will just mean that the minority party will add poison pills to every piece of legislation that comes through.  Some totally pointless peice of legislation, like the name of a post office in upstate NY will have an amendment to put Reagan on the dime and to make any woman who wants an abortion get a transvaginal ultrasound and carry a sack of flour in a baby bjorn for 10 days.


If it was limited to one amendment relevant, I could almost understand how they could vote for it. Otherwise it's a damned disaster.

Wait - they're guaranteed to have two amendments inserted into every bill, or guaranteed that at least two amendments would be debated? The former is a disaster, the latter less so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the latter case, you'd still need 51 Senators - on record - supporting the "Draw Dicks on Every Picture of Jimmy Carter" amendment in the first place for it to be added to the Post Office renaming bill.


Here is the proposal. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FilibusterProposal122812.pdf
I THINK that it means by guaranteed amendment is that it is guaranteed a vote, I wish it was more clear. Also the majority leader is basically offer a choice, allow classic filibuster or put 4 amendments to vote (2 from each party). Putting 4 amendments to vote doesn't mean they have to be in the final bill. I think this is a good compromise if this is what it means.
 
2013-01-03 02:28:15 PM  
Reid will hopefully sh*t on this, then fix things properly in a couple of weeks. He technically can force it through despite GOP outrage.
 
2013-01-03 02:29:37 PM  
So the room must listen to me
filibuster vigilantly
my name is blue canary
one note spelled L-I-T-E
 
2013-01-03 02:33:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: You'll Have to Wait 19 Days for a Filibuster Reform Vote


Good. Looks like Reid is planning on doing what he SHOULD do...give the appearance of giving a sh*t what these weasels say, they manning up and just taking the filibuster back to its original pre-1975 procedure. If he has the cojones to do this I may re-evaluate my opinion of him.
 
2013-01-03 02:35:15 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy - which proponents of a weaker filibuster say defeats the purpose.

That is a truly awful idea.


Yeah what the hell. They'll just make the two amendments nullify the wording of the legislation.
 
2013-01-03 02:36:26 PM  
This bill is garbage. I have a better one.

Every time the filibusterer is used, tax cuts for the 1%!

Seriously. Why doesn't Reid find a way to tie this to the budget so it gets a simple up or down vote?
 
2013-01-03 02:36:35 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Reid will hopefully sh*t on this, then fix things properly in a couple of weeks. He technically can force it through despite GOP outrage.


This assumes that the Democrats unite. Considering this worthless shiat of a proposal is partially from a D (Levin), it would probably be safe to assume there would be enough retards in the caucus to screw things up and let the rules stand as they are in all of their crappy glory.
 
2013-01-03 02:37:14 PM  

James!: antidisestablishmentarianism: James!: I require that we add an amendment to this bill that all your wives be raped!

Yeah, that's about all it would take for a minority party to kill something they don't agree with.

On the other hand it would be hilarious if we had a "rape amendment" problem instead of a filibuster problem.

"Mr. Speaker we need rape amendment reform to stop this gridlock!"


Too many politicians support rape for this ever to be a problem.
 
2013-01-03 02:39:45 PM  
Crappy Glory would be a shiatty name for a band.
 
2013-01-03 02:42:45 PM  

MindStalker: Dr Dreidel: Darth_Lukecash: BSABSVR: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy

Fark no.  This will just mean that the minority party will add poison pills to every piece of legislation that comes through.  Some totally pointless peice of legislation, like the name of a post office in upstate NY will have an amendment to put Reagan on the dime and to make any woman who wants an abortion get a transvaginal ultrasound and carry a sack of flour in a baby bjorn for 10 days.


If it was limited to one amendment relevant, I could almost understand how they could vote for it. Otherwise it's a damned disaster.

Wait - they're guaranteed to have two amendments inserted into every bill, or guaranteed that at least two amendments would be debated? The former is a disaster, the latter less so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the latter case, you'd still need 51 Senators - on record - supporting the "Draw Dicks on Every Picture of Jimmy Carter" amendment in the first place for it to be added to the Post Office renaming bill.

Here is the proposal. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FilibusterProposal122812.pdf
I THINK that it means by guaranteed amendment is that it is guaranteed a vote, I wish it was more clear. Also the majority leader is basically offer a choice, allow classic filibuster or put 4 amendments to vote (2 from each party). Putting 4 amendments to vote doesn't mean they have to be in the final bill. I think this is a good compromise if this is what it means.


That's what it sounds like to me, and I think actually makes a pretty good compromise. The fact that it needs to be approved, by I'm assuming a majority vote, would eliminate the poison pill amendments TFA seems to be worried about. The fact that the minority party is often blocked out of the amendment creation process is one of the only semi-reasonable argument I've heard regarding the filibuster (I actually think I heard McCain make it, not surprisingly). For one of the minority party's amendments to get a majority of votes pretty much by definition means it has some semblance of bipartisan support.

However, I would like to see some requirement for relevance to the bill. I think one of the biggest problems with Congress is all the BS tacked on crap that has nothing to do with the bill, but we still have to pass the bill.

On the other hand, if the proposal actually means the minority party is guaranteed 2 amendments to make it onto the bill, that's just pants-on-head retarded, as has already been pointed out.
 
2013-01-03 02:50:34 PM  
Wouldn't this be a line item veto for the minority? They could change words like "cannot" or "must" to "can" and "shall".
 
2013-01-03 02:51:59 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: hillbillypharmacist: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy - which proponents of a weaker filibuster say defeats the purpose.

That is a truly awful idea.

Yeah what the hell. They'll just make the two amendments nullify the wording of the legislation.


Or alternatively, the (D)'s will make one amendment be "a 90% tax rate on income above $250,000" and the (R)'s will make the one amendment "ban abortion entirely."

You know our country is in some deep shiat when we're arguing it's a good idea to be able to attach unrelated, irrelevant amendments to bills.
 
2013-01-03 02:56:05 PM  

TheOther: There will be 20 women Senators...when they all sync up, nobody is getting anything done....


But, but, Dr. Oz says this syncing thing is not true!
 
2013-01-03 02:56:11 PM  

TheOther: There will be 20 women Senators...when they all sync up, nobody is getting anything done....


I'm guessing some of them aren't "syncing up" with the others. Menopause, you know.
 
2013-01-03 02:59:00 PM  
How do you attach an amendment to a confirmation?
 
2013-01-03 03:00:47 PM  

Summoner101: How do you attach an amendment to a confirmation?


Binder clips?
 
2013-01-03 03:01:07 PM  

lennavan: HotWingConspiracy: hillbillypharmacist: The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills - regardless of relevancy - which proponents of a weaker filibuster say defeats the purpose.

That is a truly awful idea.

Yeah what the hell. They'll just make the two amendments nullify the wording of the legislation.

Or alternatively, the (D)'s will make one amendment be "a 90% tax rate on income above $250,000" and the (R)'s will make the one amendment "ban abortion entirely."

You know our country is in some deep shiat when we'rethey're arguing it's a good idea to be able to attach unrelated, irrelevant amendments to bills.


We know it's dumb.
 
2013-01-03 03:03:41 PM  
Is Obama not allowed to veto these kinds of changes?

The whole idea sucks.
 
2013-01-03 03:04:50 PM  
They can do away with the fillibuster outright at any time with a simple majority vote. But they don't. NO ONE in the Senate wants to "reform" this farker, and it never will be. It allows each and every one of those 100 fairy princesses to be an obstructionist cock when they want to be. It allows them immense power well outside of that envisioned by the constitution.

The Senate is an anachronism, and should be done away with in it's entirety.
 
2013-01-03 03:05:52 PM  

bdub77: Is Obama not allowed to veto these kinds of changes?


No. Obama would never see this kind of change. He has no power to set the rules of the Senate. The Senate has the power to set whatever rules they like when it comes to creating legislation, and NO ONE can influence that.
 
2013-01-03 03:05:58 PM  

bdub77: Is Obama not allowed to veto these kinds of changes?

The whole idea sucks.


No, but he could just veto everything with 2 idiotic amendments attached.
 
2013-01-03 03:07:14 PM  
Simpsons did it:

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
 
2013-01-03 03:09:25 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Dusk-You-n-Me: You'll Have to Wait 19 Days for a Filibuster Reform Vote

Good. Looks like Reid is planning on doing what he SHOULD do...give the appearance of giving a sh*t what these weasels say, they manning up and just taking the filibuster back to its original pre-1975 procedure. If he has the cojones to do this I may re-evaluate my opinion of him.


I will bet you he wimps out. Again. Reid's gotta keep that powder dry. Very dry powder. He's all about keeping his powder powder-dry.

C'mon, money's on the table. Take the bet. This is a sure thing! TAKE THE BET.

Seriously, betting against Reid's streak of inactivity has gotta pay off sometime! You're due!
 
2013-01-03 03:10:05 PM  
Levin needs to retire...he's been there too long
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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