Houses Passes Bill for DC Statehood.

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah the abject dishonesty of the poster you all are replying to shines through.

Irony.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No joke I bet Starbuck would try and find a way to blame Democrats for this so he could concern troll some more.

And you will always be right there buckets at the ready to defend them

 

[fskimospy]

And you will always be right there buckets at the ready to defend them

Haha, of course. Tell us more about how Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans were totally going to let the Democrats filibuster their judicial nominations until Harry Reid eliminated it.

I find it impossible to believe anyone is actually that naive.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Haha, of course. Tell us more about how Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans were totally going to let the Democrats filibuster their judicial nominations until Harry Reid eliminated it.

I find it impossible to believe anyone is actually that naive.

You’re welcome to point to where I’ve defended Moscow Mitch or Graham or any of the GOP Senators, who like Harry Reid, have undermined the integrity of what the Senate is supposed to represent. The GOP, like the Democrats, will have to lie in the bed they made for themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

You’re welcome to point to where I’ve defended Moscow Mitch or Graham or any of the GOP Senators, who like Harry Reid, have undermined the integrity of what the Senate is supposed to represent. The GOP, like the Democrats, will have to lie in the bed they made for themselves.

I didn’t say you’ve defended them at all, you claimed Reid’s elimination of the filibuster had unintended consequences, which is comically wrong.

It’s also odd that you think Harry Reid upholding his end of the agreement in nuking the filibuster somehow undermines the integrity of the Senate. He did what both parties agreed he should do.

Also, the filibuster has no place in our government. It is not part of the constitution and has a shameful history associated with it.

 

[dainthomas]

The next "revolutionary" in the GOP will be the one who actually moves the party in the direction of creating policy positions that can actually attract a majority of voters.

Yeah right, how is that supposed to own the libs?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I didn’t say you’ve defended them at all, you claimed Reid’s elimination of the filibuster had unintended consequences, which is comically wrong.

Except of course dangerously politicizing judicial appointments.

It’s also odd that you think Harry Reid upholding his end of the agreement in nuking the filibuster somehow undermines the integrity of the Senate. He did what both parties agreed he should do.

Reid abused the filibuster during the Bush admin to obstruct judicial appointments, then cried foul when the GOP did the same to Obama, eliminated the filibuster to remove that obstruction and then the GOP did the same for SCOTUS nominees. Many warned Reid not to remove the filibuster.

The premise of the Senate rests on Senators consistently adhering to rules, not flip flopping out of political convenience. Should a SCOTUS seat open before the end of Trump’s presidency, you will see a whole lot of flip flopping again.

Also, the filibuster has no place in our government. It is not part of the constitution and has a shameful history associated with it.

The filibuster has a place, but this business of letting Senators filibuster without actually putting in the work defeats the purpose, and it should be a procedure used in moderation.

 

[fskimospy]

Except of course dangerously politicizing judicial appointments.

They were already politicized, that’s the point.

Reid abused the filibuster during the Bush admin to obstruct judicial appointments, then cried foul when the GOP did the same to Obama, eliminated the filibuster to remove that obstruction and then the GOP did the same for SCOTUS nominees. Many warned Reid not to remove the filibuster.

This is so wrong I feel it is likely deliberate because you can’t give up the concern trolling.

Whether or not the filibuster was ‘abused’ during Bush, this is the actual history of it - both sides came to a very clear agreement in 2005 that filibusters were not to be used except in ‘exceptional circumstances’. After that point democratic filibusters of judges largely stopped.

Gang of 14 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In 2008 when Obama won and Democrats controlled the senate the GOP effectively stopped following the agreement they themselves forced and began filibustering judges left and right. It eventually got so bad that McConnell stated he would not permit any nominee fill the DC Circuit regardless of their qualifications. This was a clear and unequivocal breach of the agreement the GOP signed on to, and therefore as per the Republican’s own demanded position, the judicial filibuster was eliminated. Reid simply upheld the agreement. You appear to think he should have breached it just like the GOP did.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you if you thought Reid should have breached the agreement as the GOP did. You have repeatedly refused to answer. (Because you have no answer)

The premise of the Senate rests on Senators consistently adhering to rules, not flip flopping out of political convenience. Should a SCOTUS seat open before the end of Trump’s presidency, you will see a whole lot of flip flopping again.

The filibuster has a place, but this business of letting Senators filibuster without actually putting in the work defeats the purpose, and it should be a procedure used in moderation.

That’s not the premise of the senate at all, but regardless the GOP were the ones not consistently adhering to rules while Reid was. If that’s your argument, consistency required removal of the filibuster. If the GOP wanted to retain it, they should have kept to the agreement they demanded.

The good news is that it looks like the Democrats will finally nuke the filibuster entirely if they regain control in 2020. This is long, long overdue and will greatly help the country no matter who controls the government.

 

[Starbuck1975]

They were already politicized, that’s the point. This is so wrong I feel it is likely deliberate because you can’t give up the concern trolling.

It’s not wrong. The compromise fell apart once the Democrats regained the majority and started playing games with Bush’s nominees. As members of the Gang of 14, it explains how and why Graham and Collins behaved during the Kavanaugh hearings.

Whether or not the filibuster was ‘abused’ during Bush, this is the actual history of it - both sides came to a very clear agreement in 2005 that filibusters were not to be used except in ‘exceptional circumstances’. After that point democratic filibusters of judges largely stopped.

Yes, and the circumstances around that agreement changed, essentially nullifying it.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you if you thought Reid should have breached the agreement as the GOP did. You have repeatedly refused to answer. (Because you have no answer)

Because your chronology is a bit off. Democrats took the Senate in 2006, and resumed playing petty politics with judicial nominees to the extent that it screwed over the GOP Gang of 14 members, and paved the way for Mitch to take a more hardline stance. Odd that you would expect the GOP to adhere to an agreement that the Democrats actively undermined once political fortunes changed.

The good news is that it looks like the Democrats will finally nuke the filibuster entirely if they regain control in 2020. This is long, long overdue and will greatly help the country no matter who controls the government.

The laws of unintended consequences will guide the outcome as is often the case.

 

[fskimospy]

It’s not wrong. The compromise fell apart once the Democrats regained the majority and started playing games with Bush’s nominees. As members of the Gang of 14, it explains how and why Graham and Collins behaved during the Kavanaugh hearings.

Yes, and the circumstances around that agreement changed, essentially nullifying it.

Because your chronology is a bit off. Democrats took the Senate in 2006, and resumed playing petty politics with judicial nominees to the extent that it screwed over the GOP Gang of 14 members, and paved the way for Mitch to take a more hardline stance. Odd that you would expect the GOP to adhere to an agreement that the Democrats actively undermined once political fortunes changed.

You are making things up and rewriting history now. The agreement was entirely about the filibuster. Period. It said nothing as to whether or not a senate majority could simply refuse to confirm someone. Absolutely nothing.

So no, they did nothing to undermine the agreement, you just invented new parts of it so you could pretend the Democrats violated it. The GOP violated it by mass filibuster of judicial nominees, which cannot be reasonably construed as every nominee being an extraordinary circumstance.

Can you answer why you aren’t praising Harry Reid for sticking to the rules as you said was necessary? The Republicans filibustered nominees, therefore the filibuster was eliminated. This is exactly what Republicans demanded in the agreement and this is exactly what they got. You should be happy.

The laws of unintended consequences will guide the outcome as is often the case.

Yes, oh god what will we do with those terrible consequences where if a party wins an election it actually gets to implement its agenda. It would almost be like we lived in a democracy or something.

I don’t know why you’re so irrationally committed to concern trolling that you need to lie about easily verifiable facts.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You are making things up and rewriting history now. The agreement was entirely about the filibuster. Period. It said nothing as to whether or not a senate majority could simply refuse to confirm someone. Absolutely nothing.

It was a compromise made specific to the use of the filibuster within the context of judicial appointments.

So no, they did nothing to undermine the agreement, you just invented new parts of it so you could pretend the Democrats violated it. The GOP violated it by mass filibuster of judicial nominees, which cannot be reasonably construed as every nominee being an extraordinary circumstance.

Yes they did

Can you answer why you aren’t praising Harry Reid for sticking to the rules as you said was necessary? The Republicans filibustered nominees, therefore the filibuster was eliminated. This is exactly what Republicans demanded in the agreement and this is exactly what they got. You should be happy.

Harry Reid didn’t stick to the rules, he made a strategic error.

Yes, oh god what will we do with those terrible consequences where if a party wins an election it actually gets to implement its agenda. It would almost be like we lived in a democracy or something.

The judiciary serves a different purpose than furthering an agenda.

I don’t know why you’re so irrationally committed to concern trolling that you need to lie about easily verifiable facts.

Because I don’t agree with the partisan narrative you are associating to those facts. The Gang of 14 and their compromise is factual. The chain of events that led to the unraveling of that compromise is open to interpretation depending on who you perceive as the honest broker.

 

[fskimospy]

It was a compromise made specific to the use of the filibuster within the context of judicial appointments.

Yes they did

Great, glad we agree. Therefore denying appointments with a senate majority doesn’t breach the agreement. Filibustering them routinely as the GOP did though, does.

Harry Reid didn’t stick to the rules, he made a strategic error.

We just established that he did stick to the rules though! The rule everyone agreed on was filibuster outside of extraordinary circumstances meant the elimination of the filibuster. GOP did it outside of extraordinary circumstances -> filibuster gone. Those were the established rules.

As far as an error goes, like I said I don’t believe you’re actually this naive, just committed to concern trolling. McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster himself as soon as it stood in his way - the only error Reid made was waiting as long as he did.

The judiciary serves a different purpose than furthering an agenda.

As recent years have shown who comprises the judiciary certainly is part of any agenda. This is why McConnell is fixated on it.

Because I don’t agree with the partisan narrative you are associating to those facts. The Gang of 14 and their compromise is factual. The chain of events that led to the unraveling of that compromise is open to interpretation depending on who you perceive as the honest broker.

Lol, no. I would love for you to attempt to construct a narrative where the GOP is the honest broker here, sticking solely to the terms of the agreement. (Ie: judicial filibusters)

You can’t, which is why you had to invent that other stuff like the Democrats ‘effectively’ undermining the agreement by denying appointments using a senate majority even though the agreement had zero to do with majority votes.

 

[Paratus]

Correct it’s sort of like stealing a Supreme Court pick or not allowing a D President to install judges or filibustering literally everything.
Fuck it the game has changed, no sense playing by the old rules when nobody else is.

I suggest calling these “Mconnell” rules. If it’s fine for one side to do whatever they can get away with it’s fine for the other.

 

[Paratus]

Partisan victories are almost always pyrrhic

Yup. And it’s time for the Dems to make Mconnell’s partisan victories pyrrhic.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yup. And it’s time for the Dems to make Mconnell’s partisan victories pyrrhic.

Exactly

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yup. And it’s time for the Dems to make Mconnell’s partisan victories pyrrhic.

It’s time for the electorate to do so. That’s how short sighted politics tend to play out.