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.

(Washington Post)   Lucy sets up the football once again   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 34
    More: Unlikely, Harry Reid, d.c. circuit court of appeals, football, Democratic Party  
•       •       •

2451 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 6:56 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-19 07:00:09 PM
Opponents of fixing the filibuster are worried that disaster could strike if and when Republicans hold the White House and Senate again, if filibuster rules are weakened.

But this is foolish and shortsighted. For the next two years there is no danger as a Democratic President continues to hold the White House. Beyond that, the likelihood that the GOP will hold both Presidency and Senate is low. And if that should come to pass, then the American people should quite frankly get the government they voted for, without a continual run of judicial filibusters from Democrats (to say nothing of the fact that Democrats won't be as obstructionist as Republicans in that situation, a fact that by itself creates a structural advantage for Republicans as long as current rules are in place.) Link

Also, Link
 
2013-11-19 07:01:38 PM
Won't happen. Harry Reid's gelatinous notochord only stiffens when he's fighting for his elected seat.

/"Harry Reid's gelatinous notochord" being the best phrase to come out of last week's headlines.
 
2013-11-19 07:04:42 PM
He's taking another look at rules reform.

This sounds serious.
 
2013-11-19 07:07:33 PM
That sounds as threatening as a UN letter coming from Reid.
 
2013-11-19 07:08:05 PM
You know what? Just do it. Get it over with. I'm tired of this being wielded like it's a real weapon. What it is is political suicide, especially when the Republicans make gains next election cycle after the Obamacare debacle. It'll end gridlock, all right. It will end the Senate's role in government almost completely.
 
2013-11-19 07:09:26 PM
The Senate is committing dereliction of duty by failing to hold up or down votes on nominees in a timely manner. If Harry Reid and the Democrats don't push for an end to the filibuster on nominees, they are culpable in this dereliction.
 
2013-11-19 07:09:32 PM
what kind of person would you be if you didn't explore all of your options?

maybe he's paying attention to the American public & doesn't like the approval ratings he & his colleagues have earned.
 
2013-11-19 07:10:30 PM
Just do it already, Reid.  The biggest argument against it that I've heard is that it could backfire on the Democrats when they are eventually the minority party again.  And I say, so what?  The rules are broken as they are and they need to be changed, no matter which party is in power.  Fix it now, so it will be more fair for all parties going forward.
 
2013-11-19 07:13:14 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Opponents of fixing the filibuster are worried that disaster could strike if and when Republicans hold the White House and Senate again, if filibuster rules are weakened.

But this is foolish and shortsighted. For the next two years there is no danger as a Democratic President continues to hold the White House. Beyond that, the likelihood that the GOP will hold both Presidency and Senate is low. And if that should come to pass, then the American people should quite frankly get the government they voted for, without a continual run of judicial filibusters from Democrats (to say nothing of the fact that Democrats won't be as obstructionist as Republicans in that situation, a fact that by itself creates a structural advantage for Republicans as long as current rules are in place.) Link

Also, Link


All of this. The GOP can't gerrymander its way into control of the Senate.
 
2013-11-19 07:16:49 PM
This drive me nuts. The Republicans are doing something they said themselves was unconstitutional.

I know republicans never actually pay attention to what they say but why does no one every call them on it?

It's sad because they are dishonest so often no one if pays attention when they do it anymore.
 
2013-11-19 07:18:17 PM
They are not confidant that they will ho;d the senate in 2014, so they'll never do it.
 
2013-11-19 07:18:20 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Opponents of fixing the filibuster are worried that disaster could strike if and when Republicans hold the White House and Senate again, if filibuster rules are weakened.


And remember what happened when that occurred? The Republicans made a deal that the Democrats had to approve everyone and the Democrats took it. So what the hell is the down side. Currently it is the Republicans can use it and the Democrats can't.
 
2013-11-19 07:18:38 PM
I'm sure a sternly worded press release is forthcoming
 
2013-11-19 07:20:58 PM
DO IT.
 
2013-11-19 07:21:05 PM

Corvus: This drive me nuts. The Republicans are doing something they said themselves was unconstitutional.

I know republicans never actually pay attention to what they say but why does no one every call them on it?

It's sad because they are dishonest so often no one if pays attention when they do it anymore.


Because the mainstream media, as we all know, is horribly biased on the liberal side. Duh.
 
2013-11-19 07:21:37 PM
Just change it so the rules say you have to do your filibusters like Mr. Smith goes to washington, so these assclowns have to stand up there and speak on topic until they've said all they want to say and then when they are done talking, we hold the vote.   That's how it should be done.

The filibuster wasn't meant to allow a minority to permanently prevent a bill from passing or a vote from occurring.  It's just that the Senate is "the more deliberative body" and out of respect for every Senators views they allow themselves as much time as they want to discuss a bill as they want.

It's BS how its used now, which is literally every time something comes up for a vote.
 
2013-11-19 07:24:00 PM

simkatu: Just change it so the rules say you have to do your filibusters like Mr. Smith goes to washington, so these assclowns have to stand up there and speak on topic until they've said all they want to say and then when they are done talking, we hold the vote.   That's how it should be done.

The filibuster wasn't meant to allow a minority to permanently prevent a bill from passing or a vote from occurring.  It's just that the Senate is "the more deliberative body" and out of respect for every Senators views they allow themselves as much time as they want to discuss a bill as they want.

It's BS how its used now, which is literally every time something comes up for a vote.


This. I don't even call the thing the Senate has a filibuster. It's a tyranny of the minority.
 
2013-11-19 07:24:38 PM

quizzical: The biggest argument against it that I've heard is that it could backfire on the Democrats when they are eventually the minority party again.


If the current Republican party gains control of the Senate, they're going to enact their own filibuster reform anyway. There's no way the Tea Party lets Democrats stop them from passing their bills.
 
2013-11-19 07:50:14 PM

balthan: quizzical: The biggest argument against it that I've heard is that it could backfire on the Democrats when they are eventually the minority party again.

If the current Republican party gains control of the Senate, they're going to enact their own filibuster reform anyway. There's no way the Tea Party lets Democrats stop them from passing their bills.


DING DING DING DING
 
2013-11-19 07:56:56 PM

balthan: quizzical: The biggest argument against it that I've heard is that it could backfire on the Democrats when they are eventually the minority party again.

If the current Republican party gains control of the Senate, they're going to enact their own filibuster reform anyway. There's no way the Tea Party lets Democrats stop them from passing their bills.


Yup.

It's the antithesis of a prisoner's dilemma because the other guy's name is "Eddie the Squealer". You know what he's going to do going in. Hit him hard and get your agenda through. Worst case is they retake the chamber and then you don't get your agenda passed either.

Besides, a decade ago, conservatives loved pre-emptive strikes on stuff.
 
2013-11-19 08:47:48 PM

Brick-House: They are not confidant that they will ho;d the senate in 2014, so they'll never do it.


Yeah, and if they don't hold the Sentate, the Republicans will push through all of President Romney's nominees.
 
2013-11-19 08:48:15 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: You know what? Just do it. Get it over with. I'm tired of this being wielded like it's a real weapon. What it is is political suicide, especially when the Republicans make gains next election cycle after the Obamacare debacle. It'll end gridlock, all right. It will end the Senate's role in government almost completely.


I'm with you on this. If it doesn't happen this time, eventually it will happen. And when/if the Republicans get control of the Senate, I would be absolutely shocked if they did not immediately enact the nuke option as the norm. The Dems may as well get a year+ of ram-rod politics through before the mid-terms.

I mean it when I say that I fear for this country post 2014. It is like we have a government running on auto-pilot while the DC polititurds run around like drunkards screwing up every thing that even barely works.
 
2013-11-19 08:59:25 PM

balthan: quizzical: The biggest argument against it that I've heard is that it could backfire on the Democrats when they are eventually the minority party again.

If the current Republican party gains control of the Senate, they're going to enact their own filibuster reform anyway. There's no way the Tea Party lets Democrats stop them from passing their bills.


Exactly right. If the Republicans ever get a 51-49 majority in the Senate the FIRST thing they'll do is change the rules to allow them to pass everything by simple majority vote. Clinging to a set of rules that leaves your party at a disadvantage simply because that's how it's always been done is idiotic.
 
2013-11-19 09:19:40 PM
Boxer and Feinstein have never said that they were willing to do filibuster reform before. Now they are. That does, actually, mean something. Both of them have considerable seniority.

These are the senators remaining who may not vote for filibuster reform:
Pryor
Durbin
Levin (an asshole)
Landrieu
Baucus (because he's a worthless sack of shiat)
Vin Diesel Cory Booker (because he really believes that "both sides are the same" nonsense)

There are 55 members of the Democratic conference. That takes us to 49 votes. Durbin has now changed his mind and is likely to join filibuster reform; that brings us to 50 votes and Biden breaking the tie. If Cory Booker has signaled that he'll play ball, that gets us to 51. Landrieu, Baucus, and Levin will probably not change their minds. Mark Pryor has actually shown a backbone for once in his life; he's getting hammered on judicial nominees, so he may vote for filibuster reform and come out swinging to bring it to 52.

I've been following filibuster reform for a long time - I think the filibuster is one of the most obnoxious parts of our Senate. This is the first time that I've seen a whip count and gone "Yeah, they probably have the votes."
 
2013-11-19 10:06:11 PM
Jesus effing Christ! If all it takes to get rid of the filibuster is for Reid to unilaterally declare "The rules have thus been changed," then why the fark didn't he do that to get the public option through the Senate in 2009? I seriously think the Dems didn't actually want the public option. They are all secretly conservatives who want to put on a show to let their base imagine they are trying their hardest to get a progressive agenda passed while secretly conspiring with Republicans to prevent anything real from changing.
 
2013-11-19 10:28:54 PM

simkatu: Just change it so the rules say you have to do your filibusters like Mr. Smith goes to washington, so these assclowns have to stand up there and speak on topic until they've said all they want to say and then when they are done talking, we hold the vote.   That's how it should be done.

The filibuster wasn't meant to allow a minority to permanently prevent a bill from passing or a vote from occurring.  It's just that the Senate is "the more deliberative body" and out of respect for every Senators views they allow themselves as much time as they want to discuss a bill as they want.

It's BS how its used now, which is literally every time something comes up for a vote.


THIS. Really how you can filibuster a cloture vote just by saying "We're going to do it" is pure horseshiat. Get up there and freaking talk.
 
2013-11-19 11:19:35 PM
Enough is enough. Civilized and mature governance appears to be thing of the past. Maybe the Senate needs a kick in the arse to come to it's senses.

I say go nuclear. Get everything they can get out of it and let the dust settle where it does. Ram it down their throats and don't apologize for doing so. Being mature has produced nothing over the past few years but gridlock and partisan BS. What more, it is obvious that should the majority change hands, the GOP turds will do the exact same thing right off the bat. So what is the big loss?

Enough is enough.

game over. game over man
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-20 12:18:47 AM
Trusting Reid with the nuclear option is much like the UN getting involved in a conflict:

"I'm going to do it! I'M GOING TO DO IT! Bah, screw it! I'll just give you the stinkeye, instead."
 
2013-11-20 12:22:32 AM
Ironic thing is, that one of the seats on the DC circuit that Obama is trying to fill is still vacant from when the Democrats refused to vote on Bush's appointment for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_co nt roversies#List_of_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees
 
2013-11-20 12:53:42 AM

Cataholic: Ironic thing is, that one of the seats on the DC circuit that Obama is trying to fill is still vacant from when the Democrats refused to vote on Bush's appointment for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_co nt roversies#List_of_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees



Do you remember that time when the Democrats accused Bush of "packing the court" by appointing judges to vacant seats, and outright refused to consider anyone for the position, regardless of merit?  The correct answer would be "no".
 
2013-11-20 03:36:29 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Opponents of fixing the filibuster are worried that disaster could strike if and when Republicans hold the White House and Senate again, if filibuster rules are weakened.

But this is foolish and shortsighted. For the next two years there is no danger as a Democratic President continues to hold the White House. Beyond that, the likelihood that the GOP will hold both Presidency and Senate is low. And if that should come to pass, then the American people should quite frankly get the government they voted for, without a continual run of judicial filibusters from Democrats (to say nothing of the fact that Democrats won't be as obstructionist as Republicans in that situation, a fact that by itself creates a structural advantage for Republicans as long as current rules are in place.) Link

Also, Link


It shouldnt matter who is in charge.  The only reason the sixty percent mark is there is to give them an excuse to do nothing.  which is what they do.

a simple majority is all that is mandated.  Get rid of this crap.
 
2013-11-20 06:33:42 AM
Fark Reid with a cactus.
 
2013-11-20 10:03:27 AM
The only thing I would change about the filibuster is to make people ACTUALLY filibuster!  don't just say you are going to do it.  do it!
 
2013-11-20 12:38:55 PM
Right.  I'll believe in that spineless sack of shiat when I actually see some action.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report