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 New Yorker)   How Harry Reid ate the Republicans' lunch. Om nom nom nom   (newyorker.com) divider line 67
    More: Interesting, Harry Reid, Republican, Senate Filibuster, first past the post, Export-Import Bank, om nom, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  
•       •       •

2889 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2013 at 12:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-17 11:25:59 AM
Well, the GOP agreed to something, and as we all know, there's no way they'll go back on their word and give the Democrats a huge middle finger
 
2013-07-17 11:44:09 AM
Just wait until there's a Supreme Court vacancy.
 
2013-07-17 12:15:51 PM
Have all of the confirmations happened yet? Because, if it hasn't happened yet...I'm not holding my breath.
 
2013-07-17 12:16:32 PM

Aarontology: Well, the GOP agreed to something, and as we all know, there's no way they'll go back on their word and give the Democrats a huge middle finger


But Lucy told Charlie Brown that she would hold the football this time!
 
2013-07-17 12:17:02 PM

bdub77: Have all of the confirmations happened yet? Because, if it hasn't happened yet...I'm not holding my breath.


^ This.  I'll believe it when I see it.
 
2013-07-17 12:21:05 PM

Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: Have all of the confirmations happened yet? Because, if it hasn't happened yet...I'm not holding my breath.

^ This.  I'll believe it when I see it.


Update: Cordray did get confirmed 66-34. Nice! That's at least one big one down.
 
2013-07-17 12:24:55 PM
media.steampowered.com
 
2013-07-17 12:28:35 PM
So the Obama's Judicial nominations are still being blocked.  How is this a win?
 
2013-07-17 12:29:30 PM
I only care if he drank their milkshake
 
2013-07-17 12:30:15 PM
It seems conservatives are eating their own over this rather than admit he's not the worst, stupidest, and craziest Leader ever.
 
2013-07-17 12:32:37 PM
Now if/when the republicans win back the senate they can kill the filibuster option, the dems didn't win anything.
 
2013-07-17 12:33:58 PM

Muta: So the Obama's Judicial nominations are still being blocked.  How is this a win?


I think you answered your own question.
 
2013-07-17 12:35:18 PM

Muta: So the Obama's Judicial nominations are still being blocked.  How is this a win?


As stated in the article, judicial nominations are for life, and the functioning of a government agency isn't brought to a half by a judicial holdup. Just one less judge on the bench.
 
2013-07-17 12:36:53 PM

Muta: So the Obama's Judicial nominations are still being blocked.  How is this a win?


Becaus Harry Reid was told that Lucy was going to hold the football
 
2013-07-17 12:37:52 PM
Smooth sailing from here on out then. Utopia any day now.
 
2013-07-17 12:39:00 PM

Aar1012: Aarontology: Well, the GOP agreed to something, and as we all know, there's no way they'll go back on their word and give the Democrats a huge middle finger

But Lucy told Charlie Brown that she would hold the football this time!


Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a couple of hundred times, well, I'll give you another chance to fool me.
 
2013-07-17 12:40:25 PM
You don't get it:

The Senate is supposed to be a privliged old boys club where disagreements are kept civil and everyone takes care of each other.

Somehow lately that comraderie has been shattered and the Senate had to be brought back to its old, historical environment of both parties getting rich while hiding each others dirty laundry and enjoying the perks.
 
2013-07-17 12:42:08 PM
Republicans had no hand to play, and they knew it.  When Mitch McConnell tried to shame Harry Reid - "he'll go down as the worst Majority Leader ever" - it was clearly a last resort.

Both parties have jettisoned decency in favor of "ends justify the means," but the Republicans are 100% there; Democrats are only 99% there.
 
2013-07-17 12:42:40 PM
FTA:
The President is separately (and more or>less democratically) elected. He has a presumptive right to staff his Administration with like-minded officials. Also, an executive nomination is like a law that has a sunset provision: the appointment expires automatically when the Presidency changes hands.

Dear New Yorker: John R. Bolton.
Also, Checks and Balances.  But we like this President so the increasing power is totally OK.
 
2013-07-17 12:43:44 PM

vernonFL: Somehow lately that camaraderie has been shattered


My guess it was when McConnell sat the GOP side down and said Obama gets NOTHING! Our #1 job is to make him a 1 term president.
 
2013-07-17 12:46:40 PM

bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: Have all of the confirmations happened yet? Because, if it hasn't happened yet...I'm not holding my breath.

^ This.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Update: Cordray did get confirmed 66-34. Nice! That's at least one big one down.


The NLRB nom got confirmed with 71 votes too I think.
 
2013-07-17 12:48:14 PM
slightly less indefensible

I'm not a huge fan of the New Yorker necessarily, but that article contained some pretty mediocre writing for that magazine.
 
2013-07-17 12:49:00 PM

Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency


Oh come the f*ck on.
 
2013-07-17 12:49:22 PM

shizukanavix: FTA:
The President is separately (and more or>less democratically) elected. He has a presumptive right to staff his Administration with like-minded officials. Also, an executive nomination is like a law that has a sunset provision: the appointment expires automatically when the Presidency changes hands.

Dear New Yorker: John R. Bolton.
Also, Checks and Balances.  But we like this President so the increasing power is totally OK.


This is, if anything, about Congress overstepping their power by trying to hobble executive agencies by blocking any and all Presidential appointments.
 
2013-07-17 12:49:59 PM

shizukanavix: FTA:
The President is separately (and more or>less democratically) elected. He has a presumptive right to staff his Administration with like-minded officials. Also, an executive nomination is like a law that has a sunset provision: the appointment expires automatically when the Presidency changes hands.

Dear New Yorker: John R. Bolton.
Also, Checks and Balances.  But we like this President so the increasing power is totally OK.


What increasing power?
 
2013-07-17 12:50:36 PM

shizukanavix: FTA:
The President is separately (and more or>less democratically) elected. He has a presumptive right to staff his Administration with like-minded officials. Also, an executive nomination is like a law that has a sunset provision: the appointment expires automatically when the Presidency changes hands.

Dear New Yorker: John R. Bolton.
Also, Checks and Balances.  But we like this President so the increasing power is totally OK.


You are proving the point. There is a *presumption* that the President can appoint whoever the hell he wants. If you want to filibuster a nomination, you better have an actual reason. Routinely filibustering every single person for the sole purpose of tanking the law is not what happened with John Bolton.
 
2013-07-17 12:50:43 PM

Muta: So the Obama's Judicial nominations are still being blocked.  How is this a win?


Because Republicans will get only 95% of what the want instead of the usual 98%. Suck it repubs!
 
2013-07-17 12:51:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency

Oh come the f*ck on.


Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.  The only difference is the frequency, and that's something that has increased continuously for decades regardless of party.
 
2013-07-17 12:51:57 PM

bdub77: Update: Cordray did get confirmed 66-34.


un farking believable

a number of senate republicans appear to be human garbage
 
2013-07-17 12:52:36 PM

Captain Dan: Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.


The Democrats filibustered executive appointments because they didn't like the law authorizing the office? Can you cite that?
 
2013-07-17 12:55:03 PM
Democrats with a backbone? That's unpossible!
 
2013-07-17 12:55:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency

Oh come the f*ck on.


What do you have?  Facts?  Voting records?  In-context quotes?

I go me here a gut feeling.  You lose, libturd.

/Legitimate
 
2013-07-17 12:55:37 PM
So for almost a whole week they almost got the GOP to give the American people a governing body, something that would have been taken for granted and generally assumed over the last 130 years of our country (when a black man wasn't President)?   What a coup!!
 
2013-07-17 12:55:47 PM
sure, losing the large majority he had in 2009 and possible losing the Senate in 2014 is a terrible, terrible thing for the GOP.
He needs to change his Magic Underwear.
 
2013-07-17 12:56:47 PM

DamnYankees: Captain Dan: Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.

The Democrats filibustered executive appointments because they didn't like the law authorizing the office? Can you cite that?


The GOP never had executive appointments that were unconstitutionally done.
So no citation is needed.
 
2013-07-17 01:01:49 PM
Allright gentlemen let's not go sucking each other's dicks just yet.  the Deal didn;t include anyof the Court vacancies.  You know, the ones with LIFETIME appointments that Obama can use to re-balance the Judiciary after the Bush years?
 
2013-07-17 01:04:10 PM

Captain Dan: Republicans had no hand to play, and they knew it.  When Mitch McConnell tried to shame Harry Reid - "he'll go down as the worst Majority Leader ever" - it was clearly a last resort.

Both parties have jettisoned decency in favor of "ends justify the means," but the Republicans are 100% there; Democrats are only 99% there.


"Both parties". Yeah... right.

The Hindenburg disaster and a campfire both involve flames. So it's ok to just describe them both as "fires".

I understood attempts at false equivalency at the start of Obama's first term. However, the GOP has gone so far off the rails lately, anyone trying to make the "BSAB" argument should be laughed out of the room.
 
2013-07-17 01:10:57 PM

Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency

Oh come the f*ck on.

Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.  The only difference is the frequency, and that's something that has increased continuously for decades regardless of party.


Horse. Sh*t.

I'm on my phone right now, but please just do even a cursory google search on just how many times each part has used the filibuster in recent times. Then take a look at the delay in judicial appointments from this president as compared to past presidents (especially Bush).

The facts do not support your assertions. The GOP are not governing in good faith. When it comes to THIS president, an argument could be made that they NEVER EVEN HAD THE INTENTION to go ken in good faith.

You can take your false equivalence and cram it with walnuts, buddy.
 
2013-07-17 01:11:38 PM
Explains why I'm still hungry, I guess...

/I sound fat
 
2013-07-17 01:12:36 PM
And once again, chubby fingers and autocorrect make me look like a fool who couldn't type if my life depended on it.
 
2013-07-17 01:15:31 PM

Captain Dan: Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.  The only difference is the frequency, and that's something that has increased continuously for decades regardless of party.


Yeah, no it hasn't. Nice try at a BSAB though.
 
2013-07-17 01:16:23 PM

Aarontology: Aar1012: Aarontology: Well, the GOP agreed to something, and as we all know, there's no way they'll go back on their word and give the Democrats a huge middle finger

But Lucy told Charlie Brown that she would hold the football this time!

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a couple of hundred times, well, I'll give you another chance to fool me.


Maybe one more time. If I REALLY kick that football super hard, she'll realize how foolish it was to keep pulling it away.
 
2013-07-17 01:16:33 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: Captain Dan: Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.

The Democrats filibustered executive appointments because they didn't like the law authorizing the office? Can you cite that?

The GOP never had executive appointments that were unconstitutionally done.
So no citation is needed.


They were filibustering appointments prior to the recess appointments. Try again! Maybe you'll be right for once.
 
2013-07-17 01:20:59 PM

DamnYankees: Captain Dan: Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.

The Democrats filibustered executive appointments because they didn't like the law authorizing the office? Can you cite that?


Of course he can't, it's bullshiat.
 
2013-07-17 01:23:19 PM

El Morro: Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency

Oh come the f*ck on.

Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.  The only difference is the frequency, and that's something that has increased continuously for decades regardless of party.

Horse. Sh*t.

I'm on my phone right now, but please just do even a cursory google search on just how many times each part has used the filibuster in recent times. Then take a look at the delay in judicial appointments from this president as compared to past presidents (especially Bush).

The facts do not support your assertions. The GOP are not governing in good faith. When it comes to THIS president, an argument could be made that they NEVER EVEN HAD THE INTENTION to go ken in good faith.

You can take your false equivalence and cram it with walnuts, buddy.


THIS
 
2013-07-17 01:23:37 PM

Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency

Oh come the f*ck on.

Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.  The only difference is the frequency, and that's something that has increased continuously for decades regardless of party.


Perhaps some data is in order.  You'll want to make note of where the spikes occur, and which color they are.

www.tcf.org
 
2013-07-17 01:26:58 PM

unyon: Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency

Oh come the f*ck on.

Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.  The only difference is the frequency, and that's something that has increased continuously for decades regardless of party.

Perhaps some data is in order.  You'll want to make note of where the spikes occur, and which color they are.

[www.tcf.org image 565x521]


Using cloture votes massively underplays the issue, though. The problem is much worse. What's happened in the Senate is that the GOP threatens to filibuster literally every single bill. In order to therefore get around the procedural hassle of the filibuster rules, the Senate Rules Committee just builds into the rules that each bill needs 60 votes to pass. So it's not counted as a filibuster in charts like that one, but in reality it is the same thing.

Here's the way to figure it out - try to find any bill (seriously, find anything) that passed with less than 60 votes and didn't have cloture filed. I literally don't know of a single one, and if you do find one, I'd be shocked if it was a substantive bill (i.e. not just naming a post office).
 
2013-07-17 01:31:59 PM

DamnYankees: unyon: Captain Dan: cameroncrazy1984: Captain Dan: Both parties have jettisoned decency

Oh come the f*ck on.

Nothing the Republicans are doing is something that Democrats haven't previously done.  The only difference is the frequency, and that's something that has increased continuously for decades regardless of party.

Perhaps some data is in order.  You'll want to make note of where the spikes occur, and which color they are.

[www.tcf.org image 565x521]

Using cloture votes massively underplays the issue, though. The problem is much worse. What's happened in the Senate is that the GOP threatens to filibuster literally every single bill. In order to therefore get around the procedural hassle of the filibuster rules, the Senate Rules Committee just builds into the rules that each bill needs 60 votes to pass. So it's not counted as a filibuster in charts like that one, but in reality it is the same thing.

Here's the way to figure it out - try to find any bill (seriously, find anything) that passed with less than 60 votes and didn't have cloture filed. I literally don't know of a single one, and if you do find one, I'd be shocked if it was a substantive bill (i.e. not just naming a post office).


Isn't there also the issue of secret holds for appointments?

Are these even considered in the discussion, or are they being lumped in as "filibusters"?
 
2013-07-17 01:32:31 PM

EighthDay: Isn't there also the issue of secret holds for appointments?

Are these even considered in the discussion, or are they being lumped in as "filibusters"?


I think its the same thing, but I'm not sure. I think a hold can be broken by cloture.
 
2013-07-17 01:37:40 PM

DamnYankees: EighthDay: Isn't there also the issue of secret holds for appointments?

Are these even considered in the discussion, or are they being lumped in as "filibusters"?

I think its the same thing, but I'm not sure. I think a hold can be broken by cloture.


WikipediaHolds, like filibusters, can be defeated through a successful cloture motion.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report