Reid was the biggest problem in the current Congress

[ivwshane]

Ok, I wasn't going to reply to this fool again, but here is a little snippet from the Washington Post so Mr. foaming mouth can shut up:

"What made the day so historic for senators, former senators and the small collection of parliamentary experts in Washington was the simple majority vote used to execute the changes — a tactic so extreme it is known as the “nuclear option.” "

If you payed attention, he changed not just the filibuster of nominees, but to the simple parliamentary rule that required the same 60 votes to change the rules. This means that any future Senate can use a simple majority to change the rules and then vote under the new rules. In essence, the filibuster IS dead for every Senate action even if they change the rules back. The minority party no longer has the influence it one had.

What's that? You are wrong again? Why yes, yes you are!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/politics/nuclear-option-explainer/

 

[Fern]

That is just as bad. I would like to see these actions eliminated. I don't see how a party that sells itself as being for the little guy pushing rules that silences the voices of the minority.

I don't think Reid acting like a one man filibuster machine is the same as the Hastert Rule.

The Hastert Rule seems to be more about survival/keeping your job as Speaker of the House. You let bills pass that the majority of your party opposes you won't last long. Self preservation makes sense.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

Most people haven't a clue what Harry Reid did with the nuclear option. The real nail in the coffin was Obama breaking the border on purpose and slicking thousands of people (and their diseases who paralyzed kids) into country - and then letting Ebola into the country while every other nation (including African nations) blocked travel. Obama is so used to being able to tell whoppers and get away with it he really thought the could get away with telling people that keeping diseased people out of country would make things worse. Obama looked quite diabolical his last few months. Nobody is really stupid enough to think that if a family on your street has Ebola the "safe" thing to do would be to let the sick people visit around the neighborhood. Ebola may have killed only one person in US so far but it killed a political party. Obama crossed the Rubicon on Ebola.

This is the type of post that makes it so difficult for me to think of Republicans as anything but idiotic. Perhaps I spend too much time on the internet and see too many people who are just as dumb as this. But it certainly seems the entirety of the conservative media machine thinks this way as do their viewers. Which is scary as hell that anyone could be this stupid/crazy.

And the result of the old system was corruption on a scale beyond the wildest dreams of today's senators and civil war.

You may not realize that boomerang is the type of person who prefers corruption so long as that corruption benefits his team.

 

[ccbadd]

What's that? You are wrong again? Why yes, yes you are!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/politics/nuclear-option-explainer/

No Jackass, what you are linking to explains the "nuclear option" in the exact same way. The "nuclear option" was using a rule to allow a simple majority to overcome the need for a 60 vote majority (cloture).

 

[xBiffx]

My grandfather is rolling in his grave. Harry has changed so much since my grandfather gave him his first job at a Standard Oil station back in Las Vegas. Heck, before my grandfather died he commented on how it was getting tougher to vote for the guy, and that was nearly 20 years ago.

I'll admit, I'm partly to blame because when I lived in Nevada I voted for Reid, twice. But back in the day, he really was a man of the people, at least the people of Nevada. He wasn't a majority leader back then and full of himself and that's when "Home Means Nevada" meant something. Now, he's unrecognizable. Power has absolutely corrupted him.

 

[ivwshane]

No Jackass, what you are linking to explains the "nuclear option" in the exact same way. The "nuclear option" was using a rule to allow a simple majority to overcome the need for a 60 vote majority (cloture).

Apparently stupidity and being wrong is just your thing. One last time you fucking moron:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

The relevant part because your dumb ass doesn't get it:

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with the votes of two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needed to end debate.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the Senate's presiding officer could on motion declare a Senate rule unconstitutional, which decision can be upheld by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

The use of the nuclear option in the past:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/191042-dems-reid-may-go-nuclear-thursday

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), an outspoken proponent of rules reform, circulated a memo to the media Thursday morning defending the tactic.

He noted that then-Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) used it on March 5, 1980, when he eliminated filibusters on motions to proceed to nominations.

He argued the Senate has changed its procedures by a simple majority vote at least 18 times since 1977.

“The notion that changing Senate procedure with a simple majority vote is ‘changing the rules by breaking the rules’ is false,” he wrote.

So once again, we have the senate returning to the way it's operated for a majority of its life and a rule that was never created or mentioned by the country's forefathers has been removed from the nomination process. And all this was done by using a rule/procedure that was deemed constitutional by the courts.

In conclusion: you ONCE AGAIN! Have no fucking clue what you are talking about!

 

[Cozarkian]

I don't think Reid acting like a one man filibuster machine is the same as the Hastert Rule.

The Hastert Rule seems to be more about survival/keeping your job as Speaker of the House. You let bills pass that the majority of your party opposes you won't last long. Self preservation makes sense.

It's still a crappy rule. There are better ways to control the amount of litigation addressed on the floor than acting on bias against bills supported by the minority and a minority of the majority. Further, it is shameful that a person's job security as speaker is dependent upon acting upon said bias. The goal of the majority should not be to keep the other side from participating.

Wasn't Harry Reid's goal also self-preservation? He wanted to protect Democrats and thereby himself, from unpleasant consequences in the next election. His lack of success in that endeavor doesn't change the fact it was his goal.

 

[Fern]

It's still a crappy rule. There are better ways to control the amount of litigation addressed on the floor than acting on bias against bills supported by the minority and a minority of the majority. Further, it is shameful that a person's job security as speaker is dependent upon acting upon said bias. The goal of the majority should not be to keep the other side from participating.

Well, whether we like it or not, the goal is, and always has been, to limit participation from the other side. That's the point of elections, really.

"Bias"? Inappropriate term, IMO. Such bills are trashed-canned for various reasons other than "bias". It may be opposition to the policy/bill, or for political purposes (as I will mention below).

In the absence of some very important principle it would be silly and futile for a Speaker to commit political suicide. Your party will just replace you and go back to biz as usual. Nothing of significance will have been achieved. When you're disposable, you're disposable.

Wasn't Harry Reid's goal also self-preservation? He wanted to protect Democrats and thereby himself, from unpleasant consequences in the next election. His lack of success in that endeavor doesn't change the fact it was his goal.

Sometimes, sometimes not and certainly not directly.

I suspect he's trash-canned bills for a variety of reasons. I imagine some are not acted upon because Democratic opposition. And, obviously, because the Dems control the Senate there isn't much of a legitimate reason to bring bills to the floor for debate and vote when they are guaranteed to fail. That would just be grandstanding or for making political 'statements' by members (some times the latter can be justified).

Other times I suspect he didn't allow a vote for political purposes. I mean his members just didn't want to go on record with a vote.

Could also be that sometimes sufficient support from a minority of Dem Senators could pass a Repub bill.

I don't oppose leaders like Reid trash-canning some bills. There may be legitimate reasons for some of it. I do object to those who scream about Repub filibusters but turn a blind eye towards Reid's 'personal filibusters'.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I don't think Reid acting like a one man filibuster machine is the same as the Hastert Rule.

The Hastert Rule seems to be more about survival/keeping your job as Speaker of the House. You let bills pass that the majority of your party opposes you won't last long. Self preservation makes sense.

Fern

Sure seems like the same thing to me. Both are preventing bills that have enough support to pass from coming up for a vote, which not only prevents them from becoming law but also keeps lawmakers from having to go on record opposing them. There is self-interest in both, and party interest in both, and the country's interest in neither.

Apparently stupidity and being wrong is just your thing. One last time you fucking moron:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

The relevant part because your dumb ass doesn't get it:



The use of the nuclear option in the past:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/191042-dems-reid-may-go-nuclear-thursday



So once again, we have the senate returning to the way it's operated for a majority of its life and a rule that was never created or mentioned by the country's forefathers has been removed from the nomination process. And all this was done by using a rule/procedure that was deemed constitutional by the courts.

In conclusion: you ONCE AGAIN! Have no fucking clue what you are talking about!

Dude, are you unable to read what you post?

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with the votes of two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needed to end debate.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the Senate's presiding officer could on motion declare a Senate rule unconstitutional, which decision can be upheld by a simple majority vote of the Senate.​

Doesn't matter if a simple majority could vote to change a rule, it required a super-majority to even take the vote. If you can't end debate and have the vote, then your fifty-one Senators can change absolutely nothing. That is the entire point of the filibuster, giving the minority party* some power. What Reid did - and I agree with him on this - was declare the filibuster on nominees to be un-Constitutional. Unfortunately, to do this over the Pubbies he had to abolish the cloture requirement on rules changes, and THAT is the real sea change here.

Note that this was not only the minority political party. The filibuster is useful for protecting all kinds of minority interests, such as lightly populated states preventing heavily populated states from using them as waste dumps or voting themselves all the lucrative government projects, or heavily populated states preventing medium and lightly populated states from establishing crowding taxes, or coal-using states stopping oil-using states from banning coal. Unfortunately when we went to direct election of Senators we pretty much reduced the Senate to party politics. Today the filibuster is one of the few tools available for keeping our biennial beauty pageant from swinging our nation from one extreme to the other and we can't wait to get rid of it.

 

[ccbadd]

Apparently stupidity and being wrong is just your thing. One last time you fucking moron:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

The relevant part because your dumb ass doesn't get it:



The use of the nuclear option in the past:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/191042-dems-reid-may-go-nuclear-thursday



So once again, we have the senate returning to the way it's operated for a majority of its life and a rule that was never created or mentioned by the country's forefathers has been removed from the nomination process. And all this was done by using a rule/procedure that was deemed constitutional by the courts.

In conclusion: you ONCE AGAIN! Have no fucking clue what you are talking about!

Re-read my posts and if you have any rational sense left you will see that what was argued was the definition of the nuclear option. You are once again pointing to information that states the same thing, only longer and more convoluted. And anyone with any intelligence would not use wikipedia as a source. Now get a towel and wipe the foam and drool from your mouth and ask your mama for some more ADHD meds.

As for prior uses in the second article, I will read up on that as I have never heard of any prior uses.

 

[ivwshane]

Did you bother reading the next line after the part you bolded? Did you read the other links that talked about how the filibuster was a newer rule? No? Then you missed the point.

Sure seems like the same thing to me. Both are preventing bills that have enough support to pass from coming up for a vote, which not only prevents them from becoming law but also keeps lawmakers from having to go on record opposing them. There is self-interest in both, and party interest in both, and the country's interest in neither.


Dude, are you unable to read what you post?

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with the votes of two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needed to end debate.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the Senate's presiding officer could on motion declare a Senate rule unconstitutional, which decision can be upheld by a simple majority vote of the Senate.​

Doesn't matter if a simple majority could vote to change a rule, it required a super-majority to even take the vote. If you can't end debate and have the vote, then your fifty-one Senators can change absolutely nothing. That is the entire point of the filibuster, giving the minority party* some power. What Reid did - and I agree with him on this - was declare the filibuster on nominees to be un-Constitutional. Unfortunately, to do this over the Pubbies he had to abolish the cloture requirement on rules changes, and THAT is the real sea change here.

Note that this was not only the minority political party. The filibuster is useful for protecting all kinds of minority interests, such as lightly populated states preventing heavily populated states from using them as waste dumps or voting themselves all the lucrative government projects, or heavily populated states preventing medium and lightly populated states from establishing crowding taxes, or coal-using states stopping oil-using states from banning coal. Unfortunately when we went to direct election of Senators we pretty much reduced the Senate to party politics. Today the filibuster is one of the few tools available for keeping our biennial beauty pageant from swinging our nation from one extreme to the other and we can't wait to get rid of it.

 

[werepossum]

Did you bother reading the next line after the part you bolded? Did you read the other links that talked about how the filibuster was a newer rule? No? Then you missed the point.

For the first, I not only read it, I addressed it, in the paragraph after the quote. For the second, discounting wikipedia (the collected wisdom of idiots) and going directly to your link in The Hill:

The Senate voted Thursday to change its rules to prevent the minority party from filibustering any nominations other than nods to the Supreme Court.

The change was approved after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the “nuclear option,” which allows a change to Senate rules by majority vote.

The 52-48 vote dramatically changes the rules of the Senate and limits the minority party's ability to prevent confirmation of presidential nominees. Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) were the only Democrats to vote against Reid's rules change.

SNIP

The procedural motion is known as the nuclear option because critics warn it would obliterate bipartisan relations in the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ripped Reid for triggering it.

SNIP

The two parties have effectively changed sides on the nuclear option since Democrats gained control of the upper chamber in the 2006 election.

Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy for embracing a controversial tactic they criticized in 2005, when Republicans threatened to go nuclear to move then-President George W. Bush’s stalled nominees.

“To change the rules in the Senate can't be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate by 67 votes,” Reid said in May of 2005.

“They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right,” he said in April of that year.
​

 

[ivwshane]

And your point would be what exactly? Have you been following this thread? The claim was made that Reid did something that ruined the senate/America, not only did he not do that (as the articles addressed) but he also didn't do anything unheard of and he certainly didn't do anything that wasn't done in the senate for 100+ years.

The dems being hypocrites has nothing to do with my claims or talking points, so nice straw man.

For the first, I not only read it, I addressed it, in the paragraph after the quote. For the second, discounting wikipedia (the collected wisdom of idiots) and going directly to your link in The Hill:

The Senate voted Thursday to change its rules to prevent the minority party from filibustering any nominations other than nods to the Supreme Court.

The change was approved after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the “nuclear option,” which allows a change to Senate rules by majority vote.

The 52-48 vote dramatically changes the rules of the Senate and limits the minority party's ability to prevent confirmation of presidential nominees. Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) were the only Democrats to vote against Reid's rules change.

SNIP

The procedural motion is known as the nuclear option because critics warn it would obliterate bipartisan relations in the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ripped Reid for triggering it.

SNIP

The two parties have effectively changed sides on the nuclear option since Democrats gained control of the upper chamber in the 2006 election.

Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy for embracing a controversial tactic they criticized in 2005, when Republicans threatened to go nuclear to move then-President George W. Bush’s stalled nominees.

“To change the rules in the Senate can't be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate by 67 votes,” Reid said in May of 2005.

“They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right,” he said in April of that year.
​

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, whether we like it or not, the goal is, and always has been, to limit participation from the other side. That's the point of elections, really.

Repubs' goals, OTOH, have been to limit any success Dems might have while in the majority. There is a significant difference, and Repubs are shedding alligator tears over bills & amendments never intended to succeed but rather to gum up the process.

They refused, for example, to ratify anybody as the head of the new consumer protection agency until Obama forced the issue with a recess appointment, and they whined over that.

If you wanted a term to describe it, them spiteful bitches would be appropriate.

 

[Fern]

Repubs' goals, OTOH, have been to limit any success Dems might have while in the majority.
-snip-

I don't see limiting "success". I see limiting the implementation of shitty policies that wouldn't be a success.

Fern

 

[OutHouse]

And your point would be what exactly? Have you been following this thread

You got owned lololololol

 

[ivwshane]

You got owned lololololol

Do you wear a bib when you type? I imagine you as an angry drooling idiot when you post because your posts never add anything and they only amuse yourself.

 

[chowderhead]

Repubs' goals, OTOH, have been to limit any success Dems might have while in the majority. There is a significant difference, and Repubs are shedding alligator tears over bills & amendments never intended to succeed but rather to gum up the process.

They refused, for example, to ratify anybody as the head of the new consumer protection agency until Obama forced the issue with a recess appointment, and they whined over that.

If you wanted a term to describe it, them spiteful bitches would be appropriate.

The goal of the Republicans is to refuse to govern, to defund government, to fillibuster appointments to agencies and then turn around and decry that government is not working. Examples include that house member who blamed Obama for not having the surgeon General lead the Ebola response.

 

[OutHouse]

Do you wear a bib when you type? I imagine you as an angry drooling idiot when you post because your posts never add anything and they only amuse yourself.

you sure are a angry person, you got owned dude just accept it. It is time for you to man up and apologize to every person you insulted in this thread.

Your personal attacks that you unleash when somebody does not agree with you are over the top immature please grow up.

 

[Fern]

Sure seems like the same thing to me. Both are preventing bills that have enough support to pass from coming up for a vote, which not only prevents them from becoming law but also keeps lawmakers from having to go on record opposing them. There is self-interest in both, and party interest in both, and the country's interest in neither.
-snip-

"Same thing" strikes me as an overstatement.

The Hastert Rule just says that if a majority of your party doesn't support the bill it won't get a vote. You can't invoke the Hastert Rule if a majority supports the bill but some members don't want a public vote because of an upcoming election and how it will play at home.

Reid's personal filibuster has no such limits.

As the leader of a party I don't know why you'd let a bill get through if your party opposed it. Obviously it's thought to be bad policy.

The Hastert Rule strikes me as nothing other than common sense. It can't be manipulated, Reid, however, can unilaterally use his power in just about any way he wants. I.e., Reid can refuse to allow a fellow Dem's bill to get to the floor no matter how many other Dems support it. I.e., you don't agree to vote for Reid's bills yours will never see the light of day. Much more available for abuse. Much more power for Reid.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

"Same thing" strikes me as an overstatement.

The Hastert Rule just says that if a majority of your party doesn't support the bill it won't get a vote. You can't invoke the Hastert Rule if a majority supports the bill but some members don't want a public vote because of an upcoming election and how it will play at home.

Reid's personal filibuster has no such limits.

As the leader of a party I don't know why you'd let a bill get through if your party opposed it. Obviously it's thought to be bad policy.

The Hastert Rule strikes me as nothing other than common sense. It can't be manipulated, Reid, however, can unilaterally use his power in just about any way he wants. I.e., Reid can refuse to allow a fellow Dem's bill to get to the floor no matter how many other Dems support it. I.e., you don't agree to vote for Reid's bills yours will never see the light of day. Much more available for abuse. Much more power for Reid.

Fern

But Speaker of the House is supposed to be above party politics - that's why the party in power also has a Majority Leader. If there is majority support for a bill - which absolutely requires some of the majority party - then not allowing it to proceed is nothing but party politics. Granted, Reid's has more potential for personal corruption, but the two are certainly similar.

 

[ivwshane]

"Same thing" strikes me as an overstatement.

The Hastert Rule just says that if a majority of your party doesn't support the bill it won't get a vote. You can't invoke the Hastert Rule if a majority supports the bill but some members don't want a public vote because of an upcoming election and how it will play at home.

Reid's personal filibuster has no such limits.

As the leader of a party I don't know why you'd let a bill get through if your party opposed it. Obviously it's thought to be bad policy.

The Hastert Rule strikes me as nothing other than common sense. It can't be manipulated, Reid, however, can unilaterally use his power in just about any way he wants. I.e., Reid can refuse to allow a fellow Dem's bill to get to the floor no matter how many other Dems support it. I.e., you don't agree to vote for Reid's bills yours will never see the light of day. Much more available for abuse. Much more power for Reid.

Fern

That's not how the senate works. Reid does not have sole control over what bills are brought up.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm

https://www.congress.gov/legislative-process

 

[werepossum]

That's not how the senate works. Reid does not have sole control over what bills are brought up.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm

https://www.congress.gov/legislative-process

Your link is outdated. For instance:

The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.​

The Senate under Dirty Harry is not the Senate before Dirty Harry. He has allotted himself the power he needs.

 

[ivwshane]

Your link is outdated. For instance:

The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.​

The Senate under Dirty Harry is not the Senate before Dirty Harry. He has allotted himself the power he needs.

Nope, he used the rules allowed in the senate to change the rule.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-nuclear-option-senate

Here's how it happened. First Democrats called for a simple-majority vote to move to reconsider the failed Millett nomination, whicwas approved 57-40. Then McConnell scrambled to head off the coming rules change by calling for a motion to adjourn the Senate until 5 p.m on Thursday. That vote failed, 46-54. Then Democrats moved to advance the Millett nomination, which had to be at a 60-vote threshold, and Republicans filibustered her again, 57-43.

At that point, Reid took the historic step of raising a point of order that when the Senate votes on cloture again, the threshold should be at a simple majority. Under standing rules, the presiding officer ruled that motion out of order. Reid then appealed the ruling, and a majority of senators (52 -- all Democrats) voted against upholding the filibuster. The vote was 48 to keep the filibuster, 52 to scrap it. That historic vote created a new precedent by which a simple majority may bypass cloture on nominations.

http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/11/21/reid-remarks-on-changing-the-senate-rules/#.VGQJZ9m9LCQ

I am on their side, which is why I propose an important change to the rules of the United States Senate. The present Republican Leader himself said, “The Senate has repeatedly changed its rules as circumstances dictate.” He is right. In fact, the Senate has changed its rules 18 times by sustaining or overturning the ruling of the presiding officer in the last 36 years, during the tenures of both Republican and Democratic majorities.