Harry Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters

[monovillage]

You're taking childish pot shots. I'm making a specific point about the behavior of an elected official.

Sorry that you're having difficulty with the English language again.

Nah, you're using inflammatory language because the Republicans follow the rules. The Republicans are under no obligation to allow Obama/Reid/Pelosi to pass damaging, if not destructive laws and regulations in this country. It's called politics and the fact that the Peoples House is majority Republican shows that it's the way the citizens want it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nah, you're using inflammatory language because the Republicans follow the rules.

No, I'm using inflammatory language because Mitch McConnell used inflammatory language. For which he has never apologized.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Nah, you're using inflammatory language because the Republicans follow the rules. The Republicans are under no obligation to allow Obama/Reid/Pelosi to pass damaging, if not destructive laws and regulations in this country. It's called politics and the fact that the Peoples House is majority Republican shows that it's the way the citizens want it.

I say we start filibustering all of your posts for the next two years and see if you don't start clamoring for some type of reform.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Dems never, ever abused the filibuster remotely like the Republicans have the past two years. In fact, the Dems would be overjoyed if current Republicans used the filibuster to the same extent as the Dems did under Bush, Jr. That would be a big improvement.

That may be true.

Justified is a matter of interpretation and intent.

A Senator's job is to represent their constituents the best way he feels possible.

If the senator does not do it; constituents have the ability to revoke the representation at the next election. Given that there was a shift of only two Senate seats; apparently enough people were satisfied with what their Republican Senator was doing.

So while from the Democratic supporters viewpoint, the filibuster was abused; from the american people, it was not.

 

[thujone]

ok see... using words like traitor in a discussion like this is just pointless because now look how far off topic we are. it's not going to get us anywhere in discussing filibusters.


but like i said before... i'm interested to know for all the republican supporters. if the pendulum swings back the other way and republicans gain control of the senate, would you be ok with the democrats using the filibuster with the same frequency as current republicans in the senate?

 

[etrigan420]

So while from the Democratic supporters viewpoint, the filibuster was abused; from the american people, it was not.

Oh PUhLeeze.

Jumped. The. Fucking. Shark.

Answer the question about whether you'd support Demo's making the same move if the roles were reversed.

Paint yourself into that nice tight corner.

 

[zinfamous]

And don't forget they're going to take all our guns.

and abort all our babies...on the taxpayer's dime.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

so... if they leave the rules completely as they are... and republicans come back into power in the senate, you'd be ok with the democrats using the filibuster just as much as the republicans are? you don't see any problem with that?

Yes, it is in line with the system of government we have in order to prevent the majority from steamrolling the minority via a wave of populist bullshit agendas used as billy clubs against the minority. Or do you not understand that the founding fathers of this country enacted a system of checks and balances so as to prevent the balance of power from ever tilting to wildly to one side so that it only favors the majority?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So while from the Democratic supporters viewpoint, the filibuster was abused; from the american people, it was not.

Drop the bullshit about "the American people". You know damned well that the GOP represents less than half "the American people". And Congressional GOP approval ratings are very low.

Something is abused when it is used to excess or in a way not consistent with its intended purpose. And that applies here. The filibuster was not introduced in order to enable the minority party to force every vote to require 60 yeas to pass. And you know that, because if the shoe was on the other foot, YOU would be the one screaming for filibuster reform.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

The issue isn't the filibuster. The issue is ABUSE of the filibuster by the traitor Mitch McConnell and his accomplices.

I don't think so.

The high use of the filibuster is a symptom of several other problems.

I remember a time when we actually had compromise. The different party leaders met and hammered out an agreement. They would 'lobby' each other face-to-face in private. They don't do that any more. They don't even meet, and if you don't meet you have zero chance of getting anywhere unless you're depending upon 'force'. Our leaders in DC just don't meet. We have the fiscal cliff looming and Obama hasn't met with anybody on the Repub side in many months.

Some thing just don't readily lend themselves to compromise. E.g., if my wife wants to have another baby and I don't, how do we compromise on that? You either get pregnant or you don't, there's no halfway there. We have many issues which by their very nature are of a type difficult to compromise on. One side wants another porkulous, one side wants to cut the deficit. Well which one is it going to be, you can't do both.

Harry Reid's hands are not clean here either. The House Repubs have passed a budget every year. Reid (abusing the rules?) has never let one to the floor for a vote. Also, he won't let Repubs submit amendments for a vote either on most bills. Reid ain't playing fair, so I'm not having much sympathy for his complaints.

Neither side has done a decent job regrading compromise. I still remember Obama in the televised hearing telling the Repubs "We won. So you can ride on the bus if you want, but you'll have sit in the back." WTH kind of shizz is that?

BTW: According to Bob Woodward, hardly a righty, the one time Reid and Boehner actually did reach a compromise it was on the budget and Obama nixed it leaving us with sequestration and the fiscal cliff. Then Obama claimed in the debate that sequestration was Congress's idea and he had nothing to with it. Well, that's completely false:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82772.html

It takes two to fight, and it takes two to compromise. The way I see it, we don't even have one yet willing to compromise.

Fern

 

[thujone]

Yes, it is in line the system to prevent the majority from steamrolling the minority via a wave of populist bullshit agendas used as billy clubs against the minority. Or do you not understand that the founding fathers of this country enacted a system of checks and balances so as to prevent the balance of power from being tilting to wildly to one side by a majority group?

i'm fine with the filibuster as a tool in the way that you're painting it there. but the way it's being used currently is that the minority party is using it to steamroll the majority.

i DEFINITELY think there needs to be tools for the minority to still have a voice over the majority, but if things remain how they are now... the entire political system is going to be a constant back and forth rotation where 1 party just prevents the other party from doing anything.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't think so.

Because you don't WANT to think so.

The GOP declared war on Obama literally the night he was inaugurated. They held a meeting to discuss how to defeat him.

All of their leaders, elected and otherwise, said flatly they wouldn't work with him on anything, that all they wanted to do was hold him up, make him fail, make him lose re-election.

So spare me the false equivalencies about it taking "two to compromise". It's impossible for two people to work together when one of them decides in advance that it is not interested.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, it is in line with the system of government we have in order to prevent the majority from steamrolling the minority via a wave of populist bullshit agendas used as billy clubs against the minority. Or do you not understand that the founding fathers of this country enacted a system of checks and balances so as to prevent the balance of power from ever tilting to wildly to one side so that it only favors the majority?

Once again those damn pesky facts get in the way!

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder

 

[Fern]

-snip-

A Senator's job is to represent their constituents the best way he feels possible.

If the senator does not do it; constituents have the ability to revoke the representation at the next election. Given that there was a shift of only two Senate seats; apparently enough people were satisfied with what their Republican Senator was doing.

That gets to another big problem in all this: If there isn't adequate compromise on a bill, and I'm speaking to the bigger picture here, you simply will not get cooperation in voting. A senator, and I don't care from which side, is simply not going to vote for a bill if it amounts to political suicide. You're going to get more of we've been seeing the last several years. You're just tying their hands.

Some part of this may be inadequate compromise in drafting bills. Some part may be constituents themselves being unable to accept a reasonable compromise. The former is under Congress's control, the latter is not.

BTW: When's the last time we saw Obama or Reid 'triangulate' like Bill Clinton?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Because you don't WANT to think so.

The GOP declared war on Obama literally the night he was inaugurated. They held a meeting to discuss how to defeat him.
-snip-

Pelosi and Reid did the same damn thing.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

ok see... using words like traitor in a discussion like this is just pointless because now look how far off topic we are. it's not going to get us anywhere in discussing filibusters.


but like i said before... i'm interested to know for all the republican supporters. if the pendulum swings back the other way and republicans gain control of the senate, would you be ok with the democrats using the filibuster with the same frequency as current republicans in the senate?

Why? It was the inevitable direction the conversation was bound to head in.

When you talk about Reid wanting to make changes to how the filibuster is used we will inevitably get to the reasons. The filibuster is being abused, how, to block legislation purely so that the other party can't claim any progress or credit, to make Obama a one term President, clearly enunciated and stated, by, what can only be a traitor, a person who will work against the nation for the good of something different, in this case a mentally ill and insane party of fanatics who have determined that any means at all justifies their ends. Fuck them and the horse they road in on. Fuck them to Hell. They are getting their wings clipped instead of shot like they should be.

 

[openwheel]

The Republicans are abusing the system. There is no other way to put it. It's very childish.

This needs to stop. The people want things done, and they elected a President, the Senators and the House to do that job. The Congress is broken and all the filibusters need to slow down. They get my tax dollars and they do NOTHING. It's absurd.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Pelosi and Reid did the same damn thing.

Source?

 

[First]

Pelosi and Reid did the same damn thing.

Fern

lulz, your posts really have gone downhill Fern. Pelosi was literally not involved in any of the debt talks last year between Boehner and Obama, and Reid continually accepted whatever moderate bill came out of the executive since 2009. There was no record filibuster in the Senate with Daschle during Bush's administration. There most definitely was record filibusters after the Dems took control of the Senate in 2006.

 

[waggy]

What makes you think they are afraid of ever becoming a minority again?

good point. they aren't even though they will some day. they don't care that it fucks the party up latter.

 

[Pneumothorax]

and abort all our babies...on the taxpayer's dime.

Aw hell why not? Aren't the majority of the babies born today born blue?

 

[blankslate]

Won't happen. The GOP tried this several years ago and became afraid of what might happen if they were the minority party. Same will happen with the Dems.

If Senators actually had to stand up and speak in the chamber (about whatever) in order to keep a filibuster going. Instead of threatening a filibuster like they do now....

It would be much less abused.

 

[ElFenix]

If Senators actually had to stand up and speak in the chamber (about whatever) in order to keep a filibuster going. Instead of threatening a filibuster like they do now....

It would be much less abused.

Yup. Make them stand up and actually do it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Making them stand up and actually do a filibuster would be worth it. Most of the GOP is old people who are very frail, so they won't be able to filibuster much at all. Democrats are younger and more energetic, so they can definitely filibuster a lot longer than some Republican on the edge of death.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

**oops didn't see above**

To me its simple to fix 1st) no more anonymous filibusters 2nd) go back to Mr. Smith days where the Senator(s) need to stand at the podium and speak the entire time to stop a vote. This way we all know who is holding something up.
I'd like to see them commit to up or down vote within 90 for judges & cabinet positions.