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.

(CNN)   Harry Reid realizes he may want to use the filibuster sometime after Republicans take over the Senate in 2014   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 115
    More: Followup, John McCain, Obama, humans, Cornyn, Richard Cordray, first past the post, Chuck Schumer, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

1811 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2013 at 6:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-16 05:01:41 PM
Was Reid's nickname "Glass Jaw" when he was a boxer?
 
2013-07-16 05:06:18 PM
People have already forgotten how awful the filibuster is because the House GOP has trumped it in terms of practical importance. But its still awful and should still be banned.
 
2013-07-16 05:12:12 PM
Stalemates on top of stalemates.

Just as the Founders dreamed.
 
2013-07-16 05:12:47 PM

DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.


No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.
 
2013-07-16 05:16:13 PM

ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.


THIS
 
2013-07-16 05:16:52 PM

FlashHarry: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.

THIS


And no more private holds on things.
 
2013-07-16 05:22:23 PM
I am sure he won't want to use them against presidential appointments, which was his original plan.
 
2013-07-16 05:24:14 PM
Yeah, because giving the GOP something they want means that they're totally going to act like reasonable adults the next time there's a conflict, just like they have every other time you've caved... oh wait.

Tell them to take their proposal and shove it up their ass, invoke the 'nuclear option' and appoint the most commie pink libby libs you can find, then hold a press conference and piss on an 8x10 glossy of McConnell.

Nothing you do will make them happy, nothing you do will make them cooperative, so stop giving things up - it isn't bipartisanship it's a slow and gradual surrender to the whims of a bunch of petulant children who don't understand the meaning of cooperation.  It's time to show them who's in charge and put them in their place.
 
2013-07-16 05:25:34 PM
Ah, so all it took was to sell out worker's rights.
 
2013-07-16 05:25:44 PM
All this drama was over 2 appointees to the Labor Relations Board? Really?
 
2013-07-16 05:25:48 PM
He played it pretty well in the end, imo.

McTurtle realized at the 11th hour that Reid might just really do it, and caved immediately to a compromise that essentially gives each party exactly what they wanted.  Straight up or down votes (and two fresh nominees in a couple of spots)

So, at the end of the day:

1.  the two invalidated recess appts get a redo
2.  the folks that would have been confirmed in a normal Senate get confirmed
3.  filibuster survives

IOW, Reid won the long game.
 
2013-07-16 05:26:54 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Yeah, because giving the GOP something they want means that they're totally going to act like reasonable adults the next time there's a conflict, just like they have every other time you've caved... oh wait.


Seriously. I'll bet part of this deal is that Obama withdraw those two nominees first before the GOP allows votes on the others, at which point someone will put a hold or claim a filibuster on the rest.
 
2013-07-16 05:30:12 PM
Okay, what's the line for betting that Republicans filibuster the new NLRB appointees?
 
2013-07-16 05:32:03 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: He played it pretty well in the end, imo.

McTurtle realized at the 11th hour that Reid might just really do it, and caved immediately to a compromise that essentially gives each party exactly what they wanted.  Straight up or down votes (and two fresh nominees in a couple of spots)

So, at the end of the day:

1.  the two invalidated recess appts get a redo
2.  the folks that would have been confirmed in a normal Senate get confirmed
3.  filibuster survives

IOW, Reid won the long game.


Unless the GOP gets the Senate in 2014. Then they're free to eliminate the filibuster and they didn't have to give up much of anything to do so.
 
2013-07-16 05:35:22 PM

ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.


I can't believe we're having this argument again. It's been 5 farking years. The filibuster makes no sense and is incredibly antidemocratic, and no hearkening back to any of the sappy stuff you've seen in movies or TV about how great it is when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.
 
2013-07-16 05:39:40 PM

DamnYankees: I can't believe we're having this argument again. It's been 5 farking years. The filibuster makes no sense and is incredibly antidemocratic, and no hearkening back to any of the sappy stuff you've seen in movies or TV about how great it is when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.


After all, there's a reason why the filibuster derives from the Dutch word vrijbuiter meaning "pirate" or "freebooter." It's not supposed to be a good thing!
 
2013-07-16 05:42:11 PM

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: I can't believe we're having this argument again. It's been 5 farking years. The filibuster makes no sense and is incredibly antidemocratic, and no hearkening back to any of the sappy stuff you've seen in movies or TV about how great it is when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.

After all, there's a reason why the filibuster derives from the Dutch word vrijbuiter meaning "pirate" or "freebooter." It's not supposed to be a good thing!


Someone recently watched The Stackhouse Filibuster.
 
2013-07-16 05:45:58 PM

DamnYankees: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.

I can't believe we're having this argument again. It's been 5 farking years. The filibuster makes no sense and is incredibly antidemocratic, and no hearkening back to any of the sappy stuff you've seen in movies or TV about how great it is when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.


I disagree. Look at what happened in Texas recently. Wendy Davis had to do the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington thing, and while it delayed the legislation initially, Perry was still able to get his legislation through because she just couldn't put a blanket, indefinite hold on it. If they were actually required to do something when they filibuster, we wouldn't be seeing these appointments held up for months.
 
2013-07-16 05:49:41 PM

Aarontology: DamnYankees: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.

I can't believe we're having this argument again. It's been 5 farking years. The filibuster makes no sense and is incredibly antidemocratic, and no hearkening back to any of the sappy stuff you've seen in movies or TV about how great it is when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.

I disagree. Look at what happened in Texas recently. Wendy Davis had to do the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington thing, and while it delayed the legislation initially, Perry was still able to get his legislation through because she just couldn't put a blanket, indefinite hold on it. If they were actually required to do something when they filibuster, we wouldn't be seeing these appointments held up for months.


I mean, I agree its better than what we have now. So I'd be in favor of just doing that, all else being equal. I still think its a bad idea though, and the very fact that people idealize THAT kind of filibuster is what gives the idea of filibustering in general a good name in the American consciousness, and has let the GOP get away with this other kind of filibuster for so long (since most people don't pay attention and don't distinguish between the two).
 
2013-07-16 05:50:15 PM
Though if the deal goes through, and the GOP filibusters the other nominees anyway, the Democrats need to replace Reid because he's clearly dumber than rocks for continually thinking the GOP will keep it's word.
 
2013-07-16 05:52:09 PM

DamnYankees: I mean, I agree its better than what we have now. So I'd be in favor of just doing that, all else being equal. I still think its a bad idea though, and the very fact that people idealize THAT kind of filibuster is what gives the idea of filibustering in general a good name in the American consciousness, and has let the GOP get away with this other kind of filibuster for so long (since most people don't pay attention and don't distinguish between the two).


I wouldn't necessarily say I idealize that kind, but it's definitely preferable because it requires more than just a "lolfilibustering" And if someone actually had to stand there for hour after hour after hour, it would probably be abused much, much less.
 
2013-07-16 05:53:22 PM

DamnYankees: when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.


what makes people standing and talking a good thing, is 1. it forces them to raise objections to the bill publicly rather than just saying "filibuster!" and heading out for cocktails, and 2. there's a limit, even for congressmen, on how long they can stand and talk.
 
2013-07-16 05:56:02 PM

log_jammin: 1. it forces them to raise objections to the bill publicly rather than just saying "filibuster!" and heading out for cocktails,


We already have this. Our public debates over bills is already huge. You think we needed MORE talking from the GOP about Obamacare or the Democrats about gun control? This is a solution in search of a problem.

log_jammin: 2. there's a limit, even for congressmen, on how long they can stand and talk.


This is an argument for why the talking filibuster is better than the current one, not why its better than nothing.
 
2013-07-16 05:58:55 PM

DamnYankees: We already have this. Our public debates over bills is already huge. You think we needed MORE talking from the GOP about Obamacare or the Democrats about gun control? This is a solution in search of a problem.


Dude, think of the hilarious derp that would come out of Sen. Cruz' mouth after he's fatigued as hell after several hours filibustering
 
2013-07-16 06:03:48 PM

DamnYankees: We already have this. Our public debates over bills is already huge. You think we needed MORE talking from the GOP about Obamacare or the Democrats about gun control? This is a solution in search of a problem.


tv news outlets and congressional debate aren't the same thing.

DamnYankees: This is an argument for why the talking filibuster is better than the current one, not why its better than nothing.


It's an argument for why "when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing. ". Personally I haven't heard a reasonable argument for completely getting rid of it.
 
2013-07-16 06:07:46 PM

log_jammin: Personally I haven't heard a reasonable argument for completely getting rid of it.


Because it's pointless?  Allow for any senator to take the floor to speak about a bill before voting, but place a limit on the time.  Tie the time limit to the length or complexity of the bill to make it fair.

There's no reason to allow individual members to hold legislation hostage when the majority want to get on with it and get things done.
 
2013-07-16 06:08:43 PM

log_jammin: tv news outlets and congressional debate aren't the same thing.


You're right - the latter is even less important.

log_jammin: Personally I haven't heard a reasonable argument for completely getting rid of it.


Democracy is the most obvious argument; if you don't believe in it, that's something, but don't pretend like the argument doesn't exist. The Senate is already horribly undemocratic, I don't think making it less so is a good thing.

The other big reason, if not the biggest, is a completely lack of electoral accountability. The way legislatures work is that the people elect their representatives, and in a party system, they know which party has the majority. In a normal electoral system, the majority gets to enact the laws it wants, and the people then get to decide whether or not they like those laws. Like them? Keep the majority in power. Don't like them? Vote them out.

Filibuster ruins that feedback mechanism. Right now there are 55 Democrats, meaning they have a 'majority', but they can't do anything. How do voters know who to blame for this? Remember, most people don't pay any attention AT ALL to politics. They have no idea how the Senate works. What they know is that the Senate is majority Democrats, and the Senate sucks. This is HORRIBLE for democracy, as it gives minority parties the power AND the incentive to essentially sabotage government. If you can ruin government without taking the blame for it, why would you not do that in order to win the next election?

It's a farking disaster.
 
2013-07-16 06:19:32 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Because it's pointless?  Allow for any senator to take the floor to speak about a bill before voting, but place a limit on the time.  Tie the time limit to the length or complexity of the bill to make it fair.

There's no reason to allow individual members to hold legislation hostage when the majority want to get on with it and get things done.


I think the amount of a time a person can speak without a break is a reasonable time limit.


DamnYankees: Democracy is the most obvious argument; if you don't believe in it, that's something, but don't pretend like the argument doesn't exist.


whatever dude
 
2013-07-16 06:19:55 PM

log_jammin: whatever dude


Great comeback.
 
2013-07-16 06:19:58 PM

DamnYankees: log_jammin: tv news outlets and congressional debate aren't the same thing.

You're right - the latter is even less important.

log_jammin: Personally I haven't heard a reasonable argument for completely getting rid of it.

Democracy is the most obvious argument; if you don't believe in it, that's something, but don't pretend like the argument doesn't exist. The Senate is already horribly undemocratic, I don't think making it less so is a good thing.

The other big reason, if not the biggest, is a completely lack of electoral accountability. The way legislatures work is that the people elect their representatives, and in a party system, they know which party has the majority. In a normal electoral system, the majority gets to enact the laws it wants, and the people then get to decide whether or not they like those laws. Like them? Keep the majority in power. Don't like them? Vote them out.

Filibuster ruins that feedback mechanism. Right now there are 55 Democrats, meaning they have a 'majority', but they can't do anything. How do voters know who to blame for this? Remember, most people don't pay any attention AT ALL to politics. They have no idea how the Senate works. What they know is that the Senate is majority Democrats, and the Senate sucks. This is HORRIBLE for democracy, as it gives minority parties the power AND the incentive to essentially sabotage government. If you can ruin government without taking the blame for it, why would you not do that in order to win the next election?

It's a farking disaster.


I've always favored a parliamentary system, where parliament composition is determined by the percentage of votes received for the party. Then the parties are forced to negotiate until they formed a coalition for government. As it stands, the winner-take-all system makes it next to impossible for a third party to affect the government except as a spoiler in elections or except in cases where one of the establishment party collapses completely.
 
2013-07-16 06:21:54 PM
Harry Reid *knows* Lucy is going to let Charlie Brown kick that ball this time!
 
2013-07-16 06:22:11 PM

DamnYankees: log_jammin: whatever dude

Great comeback.


whatever dude.
 
2013-07-16 06:22:57 PM
Did anyone expect anything else from Harry Reid?
 
2013-07-16 06:27:31 PM

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: log_jammin: tv news outlets and congressional debate aren't the same thing.

You're right - the latter is even less important.

log_jammin: Personally I haven't heard a reasonable argument for completely getting rid of it.

Democracy is the most obvious argument; if you don't believe in it, that's something, but don't pretend like the argument doesn't exist. The Senate is already horribly undemocratic, I don't think making it less so is a good thing.

The other big reason, if not the biggest, is a completely lack of electoral accountability. The way legislatures work is that the people elect their representatives, and in a party system, they know which party has the majority. In a normal electoral system, the majority gets to enact the laws it wants, and the people then get to decide whether or not they like those laws. Like them? Keep the majority in power. Don't like them? Vote them out.

Filibuster ruins that feedback mechanism. Right now there are 55 Democrats, meaning they have a 'majority', but they can't do anything. How do voters know who to blame for this? Remember, most people don't pay any attention AT ALL to politics. They have no idea how the Senate works. What they know is that the Senate is majority Democrats, and the Senate sucks. This is HORRIBLE for democracy, as it gives minority parties the power AND the incentive to essentially sabotage government. If you can ruin government without taking the blame for it, why would you not do that in order to win the next election?

It's a farking disaster.

I've always favored a parliamentary system, where parliament composition is determined by the percentage of votes received for the party. Then the parties are forced to negotiate until they formed a coalition for government. As it stands, the winner-take-all system makes it next to impossible for a third party to affect the government except as a spoiler in elections or except in cases where one of the establishment party collapses completely.


I like the idea of that, but why not make it even more granular?  Instead of forcing coalitions, let each congressman vote based on his or her own conscience, experience, and wishes of constituents.  Try to remove the whole aspect of one party struggling for dominance over the other and let alliances form and disperse on an issue by issue basis.
 
2013-07-16 06:31:08 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I like the idea of that, but why not make it even more granular? Instead of forcing coalitions, let each congressman vote based on his or her own conscience, experience, and wishes of constituents. Try to remove the whole aspect of one party struggling for dominance over the other and let alliances form and disperse on an issue by issue basis.


1) Even if there are no parties, they will naturally coalesce into parties after a little while. This is human nature.

2) If you think managing two parties is difficult, wait till you're managing 435 members of the House. It'll be chaos. Ever tried to make decisions in a committee of 400? Yeah, it'll be like that.
 
2013-07-16 06:31:35 PM

vernonFL: All this drama was over 2 appointees to the Labor Relations Board? Really?


It's a pretty big deal. Conservatives have nearly killed organized labor in this country. They are just moving in to drown it in the bathtub.
 
2013-07-16 06:41:27 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Harry Reid *knows* Lucy is going to let Charlie Brown kick that ball this time!


We finally got someone in charge of the CFPB - that's a pretty good football.
 
2013-07-16 06:41:52 PM

DamnYankees: People have already forgotten how awful the filibuster is because the House GOP has trumped it in terms of practical importance. But its still awful and should still be banned.


No.  Make it like it used to be. At least that way we can get spectacles like when Wendy Davis did it in the Texas Senate...
 
2013-07-16 06:45:29 PM

Aarontology: DamnYankees: We already have this. Our public debates over bills is already huge. You think we needed MORE talking from the GOP about Obamacare or the Democrats about gun control? This is a solution in search of a problem.

Dude, think of the hilarious derp that would come out of Sen. Cruz' mouth after he's fatigued as hell after several hours filibustering


He wouldn't actually be talking at that point, he'd just be chugging water nonstop.
 
2013-07-16 06:45:37 PM
ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.


THIS it should be an old school reading the phone book pissing in buckets fillabuster, and I said this even when the GOP was in the majority back when Schrub was POTUS
 
2013-07-16 06:48:50 PM

DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.

I can't believe we're having this argument again. It's been 5 farking years. The filibuster makes no sense and is incredibly antidemocratic, and no hearkening back to any of the sappy stuff you've seen in movies or TV about how great it is when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.

I disagree. Look at what happened in Texas recently. Wendy Davis had to do the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington thing, and while it delayed the legislation initially, Perry was still able to get his legislation through because she just couldn't put a blanket, indefinite hold on it. If they were actually required to do something when they filibuster, we wouldn't be seeing these appointments held up for months.

I mean, I agree its better than what we have now. So I'd be in favor of just doing that, all else being equal. I still think its a bad idea though, and the very fact that people idealize THAT kind of filibuster is what gives the idea of filibustering in general a good name in the American consciousness, and has let the GOP get away with this other kind of filibuster for so long (since most people don't pay attention and don't distinguish between the two).


While we're on the subject... has the filibuster ever, in the history of the US, been used to actually accomplish anything positive? Emphasis on "accomplish" - delaying something that happens eventually anyway doesn't count.

I tried looking, but I'm not really seeing anything that would fit the bill. Maybe I'm missing something obvious.
 
2013-07-16 06:49:47 PM
Didn't I just read the same ol' shiat in a different thread yesterday?

Who are you, subby? Team Tray, or Team Zim?
 
2013-07-16 06:51:15 PM
Neither side wants to get rid of the filibuster. Then elections would actually have consequences. The horror. The horror. The horror.
 
2013-07-16 06:56:20 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Was Reid's nickname "Glass Jaw" when he was a boxer?


themindiswatching: Did anyone expect anything else from Harry Reid?


Um, you guys realize he won this round, right? McConnell backed down and is letting nominees get voted on, including the CFPB, EPA, and labor board nominees.
 
2013-07-16 06:58:30 PM
Sounds like a decent deal.

Republicans stopped further stacking of the NLRB with union hacks, agreed to two more moderately pro-union appointments and to stop blocking other nominees, while Reid got rid of this distraction and Obama can at least tell Big Labor he tried.
 
2013-07-16 06:59:08 PM
Over/Under 1.5 days for the Republicans to change the fillibuster rule if they ever get the majority.
 
2013-07-16 06:59:50 PM
To be fair, Harry was for filibusters before he was against them.
 
2013-07-16 07:01:18 PM

Thrag: Peter von Nostrand: Was Reid's nickname "Glass Jaw" when he was a boxer?

themindiswatching: Did anyone expect anything else from Harry Reid?

Um, you guys realize he won this round, right? McConnell backed down and is letting nominees get voted on, including the CFPB, EPA, and labor board nominees.


He didn't win until the nominees actually get a vote.
 
2013-07-16 07:04:12 PM

Ted_Crisp: Over/Under 1.5 days for the Republicans to change the fillibuster rule if they ever get the majority.


Second order of business. After reading the Constitution.
 
2013-07-16 07:05:45 PM
Biological Ali: DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: But its still awful and should still be banned.

No, but whoever threatens to filibuster should actually have to filibuster, not just say they are going to do it.

I can't believe we're having this argument again. It's been 5 farking years. The filibuster makes no sense and is incredibly antidemocratic, and no hearkening back to any of the sappy stuff you've seen in movies or TV about how great it is when people stand and talk! will make it a good thing.

I disagree. Look at what happened in Texas recently. Wendy Davis had to do the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington thing, and while it delayed the legislation initially, Perry was still able to get his legislation through because she just couldn't put a blanket, indefinite hold on it. If they were actually required to do something when they filibuster, we wouldn't be seeing these appointments held up for months.

I mean, I agree its better than what we have now. So I'd be in favor of just doing that, all else being equal. I still think its a bad idea though, and the very fact that people idealize THAT kind of filibuster is what gives the idea of filibustering in general a good name in the American consciousness, and has let the GOP get away with this other kind of filibuster for so long (since most people don't pay attention and don't distinguish between the two).

While we're on the subject... has the filibuster ever, in the history of the US, been used to actually accomplish anything positive? Emphasis on "accomplish" - delaying something that happens eventually anyway doesn't count.

I tried looking, but I'm not really seeing anything that would fit the bill. Maybe I'm missing something obvious.


Well by definition it can only prevent something not accomplish it, But most things that was temporarally hated by a Fillibuster eventually get passed even if its like 100 years down the line
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report