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)   Now that Obama's destruction of the filibuster has swept away the last vestiges of the Old Republic and brought the Imperial Senate into line, what will this mean for his second-term policies?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 19
    More: Scary, Imperial Senate, Obama, filibusters, fair hearing  
•       •       •

1013 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 9:27 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-22 08:04:45 AM
4 votes:
He may be able to fill some empty positions and have the government at least on the path towards being functional by the time he's out of office?
2013-11-22 08:28:00 AM
2 votes:
Considering that it was Reid not Obama that put this forward, and it has nothing to do with non-confirmation votes, I'm going to assume that it will mean that some positions will get filled with a bit more haste, and the Congress might actually have some time to do the job that they've been dragging their feet about. Judges will be confirmed, jobs left empty will go forward, and the government that so many hate will actually continue?
2013-11-22 08:20:40 AM
2 votes:
Destruction of the filibuster? Subby sounds like he needs a civics class.
2013-11-22 12:30:21 PM
1 votes:

Lord_Baull: Tricky Chicken: FlashHarry: ok, GOP, if removing the filibuster for appointments is so bad, why don't you pledge to reinstate it if you gain the majority?

what's that?

*crickets*

yeah, that's what i thought.

On the contrary, if they regain power, they will discard all other supermajority requirements not directly required by the constitution.  There will be an outcry, and their response will be 'This is the same thing the democrats did only to a slightly different degree.'  And they won't be entirely wrong.  It was stupid for Reid to try to limit the gutting of the fillibuster to presidential appointments.  As soon as he touched that third rail, he should have gone all the way.

So, if someone uses a knife and cuts your arm, you should retaliate by stabbing them in the stomach multiple times, as they are the same thing, only to a slightly different degree. The penalty for both actions would therefore be the same.
*rolls eyes*

/also, this isn't kindergarten. "But, he did it to me first" isn't valid in politics.



I think you misread his comment.  I actually completely agree with Tricky Chicky.

First, what you believe should or should not be valid in politics is irrelevant.  I agree with you, that argument SHOULD not be valid but shiat like that is used all the goddamn time.  This is worse than kindergarten.  This is where you can just completely make shiat up and use that as your reason.  Death panels was a reason used in politics.  I think it's pretty clear anything goes here.

Second, his point was Harry Reid may as well have gone all in.  Harry Reid only took an inch.  You can be goddamn sure the Republicans are going to take a mile next time they are in power.  So Reid should have just taken the mile now and enjoyed it while he can.
2013-11-22 12:14:40 PM
1 votes:

Lord_Baull: Tricky Chicken: FlashHarry: ok, GOP, if removing the filibuster for appointments is so bad, why don't you pledge to reinstate it if you gain the majority?

what's that?

*crickets*

yeah, that's what i thought.

On the contrary, if they regain power, they will discard all other supermajority requirements not directly required by the constitution.  There will be an outcry, and their response will be 'This is the same thing the democrats did only to a slightly different degree.'  And they won't be entirely wrong.  It was stupid for Reid to try to limit the gutting of the fillibuster to presidential appointments.  As soon as he touched that third rail, he should have gone all the way.


So, if someone uses a knife and cuts your arm, you should retaliate by stabbing them in the stomach multiple times, as they are the same thing, only to a slightly different degree. The penalty for both actions would therefore be the same.
*rolls eyes*

/also, this isn't kindergarten. "But, he did it to me first" isn't valid in politics.


I don't think I commented on the morality of what I think they will do.  But I do stand by my prediction that they will do it, and their justification will be close to what I said.  Of course, there will be reactions much like your own, but they will be ignored.

Reid's attempt to make this less painful by limiting his relaxation is only limiting the options of his own party in the time between now and any future change of majority.  He is not limiting future republican actions, he is limiting his own current ones.
2013-11-22 11:18:29 AM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: FlashHarry: ok, GOP, if removing the filibuster for appointments is so bad, why don't you pledge to reinstate it if you gain the majority?

what's that?

*crickets*

yeah, that's what i thought.

On the contrary, if they regain power, they will discard all other supermajority requirements not directly required by the constitution.  There will be an outcry, and their response will be 'This is the same thing the democrats did only to a slightly different degree.'  And they won't be entirely wrong.  It was stupid for Reid to try to limit the gutting of the fillibuster to presidential appointments.  As soon as he touched that third rail, he should have gone all the way.



So, if someone uses a knife and cuts your arm, you should retaliate by stabbing them in the stomach multiple times, as they are the same thing, only to a slightly different degree. The penalty for both actions would therefore be the same.
*rolls eyes*

/also, this isn't kindergarten. "But, he did it to me first" isn't valid in politics.
2013-11-22 10:57:57 AM
1 votes:

GW_Diesel: MrBallou: Shut up, GOP. I'm sure you'll find other ways to obstruct the functioning of the government and undermine anything that might be good for the country. Asshats.

It's glaringly obvious that you have never studied how a representative republic functions.


(they below is the minority party or coalition in power)

They work towards a compromise that isn't perfect but is acceptable to both sides.

They don't purposely sabotage legislation with their requests, then not vote for it.

They don't make deals then back out on them time and time again and not expect repurcussions (I'm looking at you John Boehner and backing out of the deal that gave the GOP what they wanted in a budget, below the Democrats requests, because you wanted to try and repeal Obamacare through a government shutdown.)
2013-11-22 10:55:36 AM
1 votes:

RyogaM: They should also require that the filibusters talk only regarding the nominee/bill they are speaking about. The idea is that we want the minority party to explain with as much time as they feel they need why they are opposing the bill/nominee in order to convince others to vote against the bill based on the arguments they hear. It's not about reading Green Eggs and Ham, knowing that it has zip all to do with the bill being filibustered.


The problem is who gets to decide what's on topic? The Republicans in the Texas Senate used a similar state rule to force her to sit down and shut up for things like discussing a bill requiring mandatory sonograms before an abortion while filibustering a bill that would restrict abortion.

If you have a 60% majority required to vote on cloture but 50%+1 to vote on relevance, you've just created a de facto 50%+1 cloture vote.
2013-11-22 10:42:05 AM
1 votes:

Testiclaw: Maybe we'll get to see the most liberal socialist ever elected do some libby socialist things.

A boy can dream.

/why are conservatives afraid all of the time?


Because the cure for fear is GUNS.
2013-11-22 10:25:07 AM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: Red_October: [a.disquscdn.com image 640x452]

it figures that you nuts would equate restoring the constitutionally mandated majority rule of the senate to the apocalypse.


It's not even complete majority rule. It's only for Presidential appointments.

You know, that thing that is part of the Constitutional DUTY of the President and the Senate should never have had the right to interfere with at all? That thing?
2013-11-22 10:09:54 AM
1 votes:

jso2897: The filibuster is an anachronism - as witnessed by the fact that they don't take the trouble to actually do it anymore.
They should ban it altogether, unless the parties are willing to actually take and hold the floor, and keep talking. It should be hard and unpleasant to do, so that people will only do it when it's worth doing, and not just out of pettiness.


They should also require that the filibusters talk only regarding the nominee/bill they are speaking about.  The idea is that we want the minority party to explain with as much time as they feel they need why they are opposing the bill/nominee in order to convince others to vote against the bill based on the arguments they hear.  It's not about reading Green Eggs and Ham, knowing that it has zip all to do with the bill being filibustered.
2013-11-22 09:48:17 AM
1 votes:
OH NOS! A majority in the Senate can pass things now, NOOOOOOOOOO!

Wow, the right wing whining is hilarious. What's the debate? Majority rule? The fact that there's a black president? The fact that Republicans are the minority party and are losing power?

Republicans: Get some winning ideas, and maybe (just maybe) people will vote for you.
2013-11-22 09:41:18 AM
1 votes:
The filibuster is an anachronism - as witnessed by the fact that they don't take the trouble to actually do it anymore.
They should ban it altogether, unless the parties are willing to actually take and hold the floor, and keep talking. It should be hard and unpleasant to do, so that people will only do it when it's worth doing, and not just out of pettiness.
2013-11-22 09:37:05 AM
1 votes:
a.disquscdn.com
2013-11-22 09:35:58 AM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: JolobinSmokin: I wonder if we'll get an ATF head position filled.

actually that was just filled last week, i think. after seven years. crazy, huh.


The main speaking points about gun regulations by the NRA is that the Government should be enforcing the rules already on the books, while the simultaneously do everything possible to block them from doing that.
2013-11-22 09:35:42 AM
1 votes:

Arkanaut: hubiestubert: Considering that it was Reid not Obama that put this forward, and it has nothing to do with non-confirmation votes, I'm going to assume that it will mean that some positions will get filled with a bit more haste, and the Congress might actually have some time to do the job that they've been dragging their feet about. Judges will be confirmed, jobs left empty will go forward, and the government that so many hate will actually continue?

Nuh-uh, Obama belongs to the same party and thus has all the same beliefs, and he's the President and therefore the mastermind before this whole thing.



Er, that should be "behind".  I have outderped myself.
2013-11-22 09:29:52 AM
1 votes:
ok, GOP, if removing the filibuster for appointments is so bad, why don't you pledge to reinstate it if you gain the majority?

what's that?

*crickets*

yeah, that's what i thought.
2013-11-22 08:44:24 AM
1 votes:
Shut up, GOP. I'm sure you'll find other ways to obstruct the functioning of the government and undermine anything that might be good for the country. Asshats.
2013-11-22 08:08:30 AM
1 votes:
Nothing because this has no bearing on non-confirmation votes?
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report