What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dems pushing to limit filibusters (1 Viewer)

fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Courtjester said:
And all the Dem posters making comments on the article are all thumping their chests thinking they really stuck it to the GOP by doing this. When in fact, if this isn't the clearest signal that the Dems realize their Senate majority is probably coming to end here in 11 months.
Click to expand...
Right, that's why the Dems had to do it now. 11 months to appoint a crapload of judges is pretty sweet.
Click to expand...
I support your nomination.

 
Time for the R's to bring the senate to a crawl. Someone like Ted Cruz has the option to request that every bill be read in full.

 
The only good thing that comes from this is that it virtually eliminates the possibility that the two sides will work on a crappy immigration bill

 
wdcrob said:
jonessed said:
Statorama said:
Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.
Click to expand...
He was right. Removing the historical 2/3rds rule change vote to simple majority vote is going to cause chaos. If the majority can change the rules at-will there is really no point in having rules.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.
Click to expand...
As I recall, the majority can already change the rules -- Reid and the Dems considered it at the start of this Congress. And the filibuster has been changed several times before as well.

What's unusual here is that the rules change has come in the middle of the term and puts a formal end to the collegiality of the Senate. It seems obvious collegiality had already died, but this codifies it.
Click to expand...
The fillibuster has been changed by 2/3rds majorities in the past.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Statorama said:
Time for the R's to bring the senate to a crawl. Someone like Ted Cruz has the option to request that every bill be read in full.
Click to expand...
What bills? Harry Reid decides what gets brought to the Senate floor. I suspect it's going to be a parade of stalled nominees for a while.
Click to expand...
R's can still withhold unanimous consent, if they're ballsy enough to do it
Click to expand...
Keep the faith. Team R can still continue destroying democracy. Somehow.

 
I think the simple answer to the filibuster problem in the Senate is to force said Senators who are engaging in a little filibuster to stand in front of a microphone and talk for the duration of their filibuster. If it's important enough to filibuster, it's important enough to talk until you go hoarse or pass out from exhaustion.

Filibuster rules are ridiculous as far as I am concerned. Do away with ALL of it. But if they're going to have it (nothing in the Founding documents says anything about filibusters being a provision or right), make the ###holes who are holding the rest of our Senate/country hostage have to stand there and talk. Preferably on C-SPAN...so we can all have a little help falling asleep at night.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TPW said:
I haven't found anything official to corroborate this but I've seen and heard multiple sources claim there is language in what was forced through that says if the Senate changes hands, the rules revert back to a super-majority. If true, apparently laws only apply to Republicans.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Orwell must be rolling over in his grave.
Click to expand...
I haven't found anything to corroborate this, but I heard that Republicans like to drink the blood of farm animals while wearing fishnets and buttplugs.

"To be, or not to be. That is the question." - James Bond

 
Courtjester said:
CNN Headline "State Dems Drop the Bomb"

And all the Dem posters making comments on the article are all thumping their chests thinking they really stuck it to the GOP by doing this. When in fact, if this isn't the clearest signal that the Dems realize their Senate majority is probably coming to an end here after the mid-terms.

Just clear hypocrisy:

"I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority"--then Senator Obama in 2005
Click to expand...
All other Presidents prior to Obama have had 86 nominations filbustered. Obama has had 82. We really are talking about unprecedented obstruction. It's completely irresponsible.

Republicans wanted to play hardball an go cry to mama when the other kid punches back.

This said I think its a shame we had to get here. It'll hurt the dems eventually and democracy in general. But Republicans were taking unprecedented power. They essentially nullified the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by refusing to approve a nomination of any kind.

 
So I don't understand why this is a bad thing, when both parties have been saying for the last 8 years it's going to happen. At some point the trigger had to be pulled.

It's just crazy that R's are upset that the D's did something that they wanted to do. Both side flip flopped guess what it will not be the last time it happens!

 
GrandpaRox said:
Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin would make great SC justices... Can't wait until this backfires.
Click to expand...
The thing is you still have the majority hurdle to clear. You still have to justify your actions to your consituents. If nominations get so outrageous that you peel off some of your moderate support in the Senate they won't pass.

That and the rule doesn't include SC justices but whatever. You're on a roll.

 
Jackstraw said:
GrandpaRox said:
Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin would make great SC justices... Can't wait until this backfires.
Click to expand...
The thing is you still have the majority hurdle to clear. You still have to justify your actions to your consituents. If nominations get so outrageous that you peel off some of your moderate support in the Senate they won't pass.

That and the rule doesn't include SC justices yet but whatever. You're on a roll.
Click to expand...
fixed.

It's only a matter of time.

 
Gee...really odd that Obama said one thing and now does or advocates another...seems to be a little pattern with regard to fibbing lately...

 
About f###ing time. They should have done this three years ago when it was clear that the Republicans were comepletely changing the game.

 
As much as I hate most Obama judicial nominees, one of the nominees for the US Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit (2nd most powerful court in the land) is a fraternity buddy of mine.

 
jonessed said:
Rayderr said:
Jackstraw said:
All other Presidents prior to Obama have had 86 nominations filbustered. Obama has had 82. We really are talking about unprecedented obstruction. It's completely irresponsible.
Click to expand...
You got a non-partisan source for that?
Click to expand...
They are counting people who were stalled for interviewing, but allowed through.
Click to expand...
The Democrats are far more fierce fighters when it comes to fighting judicial nominees. All the really big fights against nominees have been GOP nominees (Bork and Thomas). The Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if Bush did this, which I believed he should have because I never doubted for a minute taking a principles position would stop the Democrats from doing this in the future.

 
jon_mx said:
jonessed said:
Rayderr said:
Jackstraw said:
All other Presidents prior to Obama have had 86 nominations filbustered. Obama has had 82. We really are talking about unprecedented obstruction. It's completely irresponsible.
Click to expand...
You got a non-partisan source for that?
Click to expand...
They are counting people who were stalled for interviewing, but allowed through.
Click to expand...
The Democrats are far more fierce fighters when it comes to fighting judicial nominees. All the really big fights against nominees have been GOP nominees (Bork and Thomas). The Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if Bush did this, which I believed he should have because I never doubted for a minute taking a principles position would stop the Democrats from doing this in the future.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. Neither of those were filibustered. Up and down votes were permitted on both. One won, one lost.

 
This seems much ado about nothing. It clears the way to fill a backlog of vacancies - which neither party should be objecting to on a political basis. If a nomination is a real hack, then he/she will not pass a majority. But if the nomination leans the way of the president's party, then that is simply the spoils of winning the election, suck it up, and get positions filed.

 
Sinn Fein said:
This seems much ado about nothing. It clears the way to fill a backlog of vacancies - which neither party should be objecting to on a political basis. If a nomination is a real hack, then he/she will not pass a majority. But if the nomination leans the way of the president's party, then that is simply the spoils of winning the election, suck it up, and get positions filed.
Click to expand...
That is not nothing. It's sorta a big deal.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Sinn Fein said:
This seems much ado about nothing. It clears the way to fill a backlog of vacancies - which neither party should be objecting to on a political basis. If a nomination is a real hack, then he/she will not pass a majority. But if the nomination leans the way of the president's party, then that is simply the spoils of winning the election, suck it up, and get positions filed.
Click to expand...
That is not nothing. It's sorta a big deal.
Click to expand...
A procedure allowing these positions to be filled, is not something we should be worried about, no matter what side of the aisle you find yourself on.

In other words, the Dem's should not be trembling because the next time the roles are reversed, they should be allowing the republican president to fill vacancies, without using the filibuster power - advice and consent, not advice and obstruct.

This procedure did not eliminate filibusters in their entirety, only in a limited sense, where arguably, they never should have been used in the first place.

 
I'm going to go back and try to pull all of the executive branch shenanigans together from the 60s forward. At first glance it seems like it all started around the time of Lyndon Johnson or Nixon and has accelerated over time.

 
82.7% of Obamas district court nominees were approved. 76.9% for George H.W. Bush

71.4% of Obama's circuit court nominees approved. George W. Bushs had 67.3%

Average days to get approved? 225.5 for Obama. George W. Bush's took 277.

Nuke option Mercia #### yeah.

 
wdcrob said:
I'm going to go back and try to pull all of the executive branch shenanigans together from the 60s forward. At first glance it seems like it all started around the time of Lyndon Johnson or Nixon and has accelerated over time.
Click to expand...
Shenanigans regarding judges started with Marbury vs Madison.

 
Dr Oadi said:
82.7% of Obamas district court nominees were approved. 76.9% for George H.W. Bush

71.4% of Obama's circuit court nominees approved. George W. Bushs had 67.3%

Average days to get approved? 225.5 for Obama. George W. Bush's took 277.

Nuke option Mercia #### yeah.
Click to expand...
I don't believe these numbers.

 
Dr Oadi said:
82.7% of Obamas district court nominees were approved. 76.9% for George H.W. Bush

71.4% of Obama's circuit court nominees approved. George W. Bushs had 67.3%

Average days to get approved? 225.5 for Obama. George W. Bush's took 277.

Nuke option Mercia #### yeah.
Click to expand...
link? I am interested in the data.

 
jonessed said:
The writing on the wall is they may lose the Senate so they are going to slam through as many nominees as they can now.

Obamacare is an anchor, but I think they are overdoing it with the panic level.
Click to expand...
You said that awhile ago. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=616554&p=13641277

jonessed said:
I'm pretty surprised at liberal reactions in here. This really doesn't do anything for Democrats with Republican control of the House, but given the odds of a Republican takeover of the senate in 2012 it gives Republicans an avenue into ditching the fillibuster all together and creating a Supermajority with a presidential win. Most stories seems to point to Reid doing something out of frustration that was really, really dumb for Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Sinn Fein said:
Dr Oadi said:
82.7% of Obamas district court nominees were approved. 76.9% for George H.W. Bush

71.4% of Obama's circuit court nominees approved. George W. Bushs had 67.3%

Average days to get approved? 225.5 for Obama. George W. Bush's took 277.

Nuke option Mercia #### yeah.
Click to expand...
link? I am interested in the data.
Click to expand...
https://www.google.com/#q=82.7%25+of+Obamas+district+court+nominees+were+approved.+76.9%25+for+George+H.W.+Bush++71.4%25+of+Obama's+circuit+court+nominees+approved.+George+W.+Bushs+had+67.3%25++Average+days+to+get+approved%3F+225.5+for+Obama.+George+W.+Bush's+took+277.++Nuke+option+Mercia+%23%23%23%23+yeah.
 
fatness said:
jonessed said:
The writing on the wall is they may lose the Senate so they are going to slam through as many nominees as they can now.

Obamacare is an anchor, but I think they are overdoing it with the panic level.
Click to expand...
You said that awhile ago. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=616554&p=13641277

jonessed said:
I'm pretty surprised at liberal reactions in here. This really doesn't do anything for Democrats with Republican control of the House, but given the odds of a Republican takeover of the senate in 2012 it gives Republicans an avenue into ditching the fillibuster all together and creating a Supermajority with a presidential win. Most stories seems to point to Reid doing something out of frustration that was really, really dumb for Democrats.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's still a bad idea .

 
jonessed said:
Statorama said:
Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.
Click to expand...
He was right. Removing the historical 2/3rds rule change vote to simple majority vote is going to cause chaos. If the majority can change the rules at-will there is really no point in having rules. Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.
Click to expand...
What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.

 
I thought McConnell's response was hilarious - it essentially boiled down to "Democrats are going to regret doing the right thing once they aren't in power anymore."

 
tommyGunZ said:
jonessed said:
Statorama said:
Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.
Click to expand...
He was right. Removing the historical 2/3rds rule change vote to simple majority vote is going to cause chaos. If the majority can change the rules at-will there is really no point in having rules.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.
Click to expand...
What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.
Click to expand...
Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 
cstu said:
tommyGunZ said:
jonessed said:
Statorama said:
Nice big fat FU to John McCain, who seems shocked that democrats would do what he successfully stopped the R's from doing several years ago.
Click to expand...
He was right. Removing the historical 2/3rds rule change vote to simple majority vote is going to cause chaos. If the majority can change the rules at-will there is really no point in having rules.Those that think this unprecedented change is going to be limited to judicial and executive nominees are kidding themselves. There are no rules anymore. Each new Congress can create their own rules based on the whims of the party in power.

This ability has always been there, but through all the trials and tribulations this country has gone through nobody has been stupid enough to invoke it.
Click to expand...
What were the rules a few months ago when Republicans were threatening to let the US default so as not to raise the debt ceiling? That was the straw, IMO.
Click to expand...
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Click to expand...
Two completely different issue. The filibuster has been the cornerstone in keeping the Senate a moderate voice of reason. Now it will be run by a bunch of hacks. This precedence will have long range effects which will escalate politics divisiveness to a much higher level. The issue this is being done over is pretty small potatoes on the scheme of things.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kupcho1
The Official FBG Top 70 Fiction Books of All Time - DEADLINE FOR LIST SUBMISSIONS EXTENDED TO MARCH 30, 2025
3 4 5
Replies
232
Views
5K
kupcho1
kupcho1
John Maddens Lunchbox
100 Greatest Movies of the 80’s - Not on Timschochet’s list
Replies
33
Views
769
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
Anarchy99
  • Poll Poll
What's Normal: In Your Long-Term M/F Relationship, Which Gender Has a 51% or Greater Stake in Decision-Making?
2
Replies
89
Views
4K
Jayrod
Jayrod

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top