Harry Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters

[pcgeek11]

It is my opinion that BOTH Parties have and will abuse the filibuster.

 

[pcgeek11]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/reid-moves-limit-gop-filibusters/



If Reid gets his way, the sky is the limit for Obama & Co we are going to be in for a wild down hill ride the next four years.

The Dems own it. They can now run the entire country the rest of the way into the shitter.

Wow that is something to cheer about.

Your kids will be living in tar paper shacks eating bugs.

 

[fskimospy]

The author seems completely unaware that the Repubs hold the House and, further, that the Constitution requires spending bills originate in the House.

Fern

You realize that the requirement that spending bills originate in the House is basically entirely irrelevant in practice, right?

 

[Ausm]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/reid-moves-limit-gop-filibusters/



If Reid gets his way, the sky is the limit for Obama & Co we are going to be in for a wild down hill ride the next four years.

Crack kills bro.....

 

[Ausm]

You realize that the requirement that spending bills originate in the House is basically entirely irrelevant in practice, right?

+1

 

[Ausm]

It is my opinion that BOTH Parties have and will abuse the filibuster.

Have not a reality, will is a possibility.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You realize that the requirement that spending bills originate in the House is basically entirely irrelevant in practice, right?

Still must be funneled through the House.

 

[FerrelGeek]

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.

No "nuclear" option on this on (or Nu-cuuuu-laaaarrrr for the GWB crowd).

People were mispronouncing 'noocleearr' before Bush, son. Carter did it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We all know filibusters have been misused by both parties, somebody please show some leadership and correct it.

 

[Engineer]

People were mispronouncing 'noocleearr' before Bush, son. Carter did it.

But nobody but you remembers that....I was only 11 and didn't care!

 

[DCal430]

Something needs to be done for sure. The current GOP minority in the Senate has used the filibuster more than the rest of the Senate has in history combined. Their use of the filibuster has been so excessive as to be downright seditious. It's disgusting that they'd rather make nothing happen than have something happen that isn't 100% their way.

I think the best method is that for every 11th filibuster used in a quarter (and all subsequent within that quarter), you have to give up as a human sacrifice a senior member of the party or major chair holder in the party. So say if in March the GOP minority wants to filibuster an 11th time in that quarter, someone like Mitch McConnell has to be killed (or, here's hoping they offer up Darrell Issa!). Eventually the party will thin itself out and they'll learn. Judging from the current GOP though I have a feeling we'll see 200 deaths within the party before 2015.

So I was wondering if their was any truth to this statement, and guess what their isn't. You just made this statement up. While they have used it more than in past years, it hasn't been more then every year year combined.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So I was wondering if their was any truth to this statement, and guess what their isn't. You just made this statement up. While they have used it more than in past years, it hasn't been more then every year year combined.

Grant him that warm fuzzy that is needed to complain with.

 

[DCal430]

Though what is funny is the highest two years the Repubs used the Filibuster, Bush was president. Wonder why did they need to use it for, since Bush could have veto anything the republicans didn't like.

 

[fskimospy]

So I was wondering if their was any truth to this statement, and guess what their isn't. You just made this statement up. While they have used it more than in past years, it hasn't been more then every year year combined.

Actually he's pretty close to right. Total cloture filings since the GOP became the minority are approximately equal to all cloture motions from the invention of cloture to 2006. There is simply no precedent for this type of broad scope of obstruction in US history.

No matter who controls the Senate, this needs to be stopped.

 

[MovingTarget]

I approve of this. However, the filibuster is still a necessary evil. I would be happy if they simply required you to actually filibuster in person by getting the floor and continuing to speak - like the old days. No more procedural-only filibusters. Let the filibusterer take the floor with a recipe book, a bottle of gatorade, and a pair of depends.

 

[DCal430]

Actually he's pretty close to right. Total cloture filings since the GOP became the minority are approximately equal to all cloture motions from the invention of cloture to 2006. There is simply no precedent for this type of broad scope of obstruction in US history.

No matter who controls the Senate, this needs to be stopped.

Not really, that isn't true at all.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

There have 385 Motions since republicans became the minority 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. There have been over 900 motions before then. So it isn't even close to equal.

 

[Atreus21]

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

This. Was a magnificent post.

 

[airdata]

Long overdue. This country is supposed to be ruled by the Constitution, not stupid internal rules that are abused by one of the parties.

This.

The current use of filibuster is a complete joke.

What they need to do is limit the length of legislation ( as herman cain talked about in the primaries ) since most of the shit they pass doesn't get read.

Also limit terms so that people don't get too comfortable ' serving their country '.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Both sides have to compromise and one side has to man up and make the first few steps.

Obama was selected to be the leader of the government; he should start to lead.
And lead by example.

In 2008 he let the House and Senate Majority leadership lead the government; stood back and let them poison the well. that worked as long as the Dems were in what they considered to be control (by the numbers)

However, the well is still poisoned; it needs to pumped out, scrubbed and refilled.
The Republicans have adapted to the poison; it makes them sick but does not cripple them.

Obama needs to roll up his sleeves and man the four man fire pump. Drag Reid over also to start pumping.
Then ask for Boheimer to help.

Anything else will be more gridlock and affect the economy.

 

[Thump553]

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.

No "nuclear" option on this on (or Nu-cuuuu-laaaarrrr for the GWB crowd).

My gut tends to agree with you, but it is possible that Reid and the Democratic Party have grown a pair of stones. Would be a huge improvement to the Senate and to our government in general, and a huge deteriment to the Democrats when they become a minority party in the Senate sometime in the future (that's inevitable).

BTW the recently elected independent senator from Maine, Angus King, made reform of the Senate's fillibuster rules his number one issue. He trounced both the Dem and GOP contenders in a state that is traditionally as GOP (non-moral majority version) as they come.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The problem with the argument that the Democrats won't weaken the filibuster because some day they'll be the minority, is that the day the GOP takes control of the Senate, they'll gut the filibuster far worse than anything Reid is currently contemplating.

Stop assuming fair play. McConnell the traitor has proven he has no interest.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The problem with the argument that the Democrats won't weaken the filibuster because some day they'll be the minority, is that the day the GOP takes control of the Senate, they'll gut the filibuster far worse than anything Reid is currently contemplating.

Stop assuming fair play. McConnell the traitor has proven he has no interest.

Poison the well further.

Why should the Republicans try to work with the Democrats when they are labeled as such by the Democratic leadership?

It implies that the Democrats do not want the Republicans and need them.

The Republicans are doing what they feel is best for the country.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The Republicans are doing what they feel is best for the country.

A man who openly declares that his priority as a senate leader is not to do the country's business but rather to politically weaken the president so his party can take the White House, is not doing what's best for his country. He's doing what's best for his party.

 

[werepossum]

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

Well said.

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.

I agree completely. I well remember Byrd reading the phone book and looking like a total moron, holding out for yet another multi-billion dollar Robert K.K.K. Byrd federal building to be added to whatever he was filibustering. The filibuster traditionally gives one a chance to make one's case or to look like an idiot, which is half its value. It should be restored to that.

You realize that the requirement that spending bills originate in the House is basically entirely irrelevant in practice, right?

True, and it's a damning indictment on the moral quality of our politicians that they so casually ignore the Constitution. They should at least have the balls to amend it.

Given that the Pubbies still own the House, the only possible use for Reid's move is for Senate confirmation and treaty ratification. Look for more openly racist justices to be appointed and a lifetime of Kelo v. New London decisions. Also, I think this is the term where we lose our Second Amendment rights completely due to UN treaty. (Well, maybe not completely; we'll still have the "right" to be drafted and fight at the State's whim.) I imagine card check can also be passed via the Senate or perhaps even just bureaucratically. This will also be the term where we legalize all those illegals, probably via UN treaty. At that point the Republicans are irrelevant forever; it's only a question of whether they linger on as the alternative party pushing Democrat principles, or whether our two party system becomes Democrats versus La Raza.

Ironically, I support ending the filibuster on Senate confirmations and treaty ratification, so I'm hoisted by my own petard. But the principle, that neither chamber should be free to adopt rules which prevent it from carrying out its Constitutional duties, is still worthy even if I hate the ends to which it will be used.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A man who openly declares that his priority as a senate leader is not to do the country's business but rather to politically weaken the president so his party can take the White House, is not doing what's best for his country. He's doing what's best for his party.

So he feels his party has the best plan for the country.

Is that not what Obama states?
Same as Reid? Bills he does not like are not looked at. Why? Because it might not be good for the country or good for the party?