Republicans are Lucy; Democrats are Charlie Brown; and the people are the football.

[Charles Kozierok]

Absolutely no surprise to me that Harry Reid wimped out on meaningful filibuster reform. I mean, he’s a Democrat, and when do they ever waste an opportunity to cave on anything?

More annoying is to have to constantly read this argument, this time courtesy of an unnamed “Senate staffer”:

I have not see anyone show how these rules will help advance the progressive cause and just as troubling is the lack of reflection about how rules reforms under the constitutional option could be used to hurt us someday when President Rubio teams up with Speaker Cantor and Leader McConnell.
​

Pardon me, but where have you been for the last N years?

What happened to Reid’s “gentleman’s agreement” with senate Republicans?

Were you not paying attention when the GOP reneged on the budget deal last year?

Do you remember McConnell saying his #1 priority was to “make Obama a one-term president”?

Have you forgotten the fun and games over the debt ceiling in 2011?

Given this track record — and that’s only part of it — what basis does any rational person have for thinking that the rules the GOP is agreeing to now will have any applicability years down the road? Do you really think Mitch McConnell is going to agree to play by the same rules as Majority Leader as he is asking for now, as opposed to gutting the filibuster ten seconds after he assumes power in some future Congress? Really?

 

[Genx87]

The chances of a super majority republican senate is really low. What isnt low is the possibility republicans control with a simple majority. What would hurt democrats more? Republicans being able to ram through anything they want with a simple majority? Or the off the chance republicans get a super majority and abuse it?

Harry was logical in not changing the rules because he knows down the road there is a real chance the senate flips. It is the same thought process people should think about when a president destroys rights. They dont seem to care when their side is doing it. But they never think that maybe, just maybe, the other side will have that new found power.

 

[monovillage]

Republicans are Lucy; Democrats are Charlie Brown; and the people are the football.

Posting in an epic troll titled thread.

 

[Genx87]

Posting in an epic troll titled thread.

I think the title is spot on actually. These two parties toss us around like a football. And we are stupid enough to think they care about anything other than more power.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Posting in an epic troll titled thread.

The title conveys a specific point, I think rather nicely.

Contribute to the thread or get lost.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Harry was logical in not changing the rules because he knows down the road there is a real chance the senate flips.

The entire point is that this logic doesn't work. If the GOP gets hold of the Senate, they can just change the rules to get rid of the filibuster anyway.

He's giving away power for nothing, and relying on blind trust in people who have proven they cannot be trusted.

 

[Genx87]

That is an assumption. Republicans have held the senate quite a bit over the past 20 years. Yet they havent removed the filibuster for the same reasons Democrats are saying they wont remove it now.

 

[monovillage]

In 2005 Harry Reid called changing the filibuster rules "un-American"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-supports-illegal-and-un-american_664130.html

He's also looking forward to the 2014 elections where Republicans have a fair chance of taking control of the Senate. He's just hedging his bets.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Reid could be a hypocrite. Instead, he is a fool.

And the entire way the Senate is run right now is "unAmerican". Where in the Constitution is it written that a minority of senators should be able to bring the Senate to a grinding halt?

 

[kia75]

IMO, the current changes are an improvement, but not a large enough improvement. If I'm reading the article correctly, the current rule changes make ending a filibuster much faster. A filibuster, even a failed filibuster stops the law-making process cold for at the very least several days at no consequence to the person who filibustered. Now at the very least, dealing with Filibusters are a faster process.

We do need a filibuster, sometimes the majority is wrong, and a few lone wolves should be able to block progress if it means so much to them. The problem is that now it's too easy for the minority party to stop all governing and hold the country hostage. I'd love it if the filibuster required actual filibuster ala Mr. Smith goes to Washington where someone would have to speak for hours or days at a time. If stopping a law from being passed is so important to someone then it should require some time to personal energy to filibuster.

 

[Ausm]

Reid could be a hypocrite. Instead, he is a fool.

And the entire way the Senate is run right now is "unAmerican". Where in the Constitution is it written that a minority of senators should be able to bring the Senate to a grinding halt?

Agreed, President Obama is going to face the same or worse obstructionism then he did in his first term. I wonder if this will improve the GOP's overall approval rating?

 

[Genx87]

Reid could be a hypocrite. Instead, he is a fool.

And the entire way the Senate is run right now is "unAmerican". Where in the Constitution is it written that a minority of senators should be able to bring the Senate to a grinding halt?

In the part that says the senate is free to create rules on how they govern themselves.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In the part that says the senate is free to create rules on how they govern themselves.

Fair point. But while that worked for many years, it is no longer.

Is there a guarantee that the GOP will refuse to honor the filibuster when they gain power? No.

Have they proven themselves unworthy of being trusted? Yes.

Reid also led a lot of people down the garden path by suggesting the return of the talking filibuster, and then giving it away.

 

[nehalem256]

Reid could be a hypocrite. Instead, he is a fool.

And the entire way the Senate is run right now is "unAmerican". Where in the Constitution is it written that a minority of senators should be able to bring the Senate to a grinding halt?

Where in the constitution does it say that the Senate must pass laws by straight majority vote?

 

[Genx87]

Republicans had a chance to kill the filibuster when democrats were obstructing their plans in 04-05. They didnt. If they didnt then, I dont see them bothering to do it if they manage to take the senate in 2014.

 

[nehalem256]

Republicans had a chance to kill the filibuster when democrats were obstructing their plans in 04-05. They didnt. If they didnt then, I dont see them bothering to do it if they manage to take the senate in 2014.

It would seem to be pointless to do so while Obama is president.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

2005 was before filibuster abuse became rampant.

We'll see. I still think Reid is a spineless idiot, especially for leading people to believe he was going to institute real change and then not doing it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Where in the constitution does it say that the Senate must pass laws by straight majority vote?

It is not spelled out, but it is implied in Article I, Section 3, point 4: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall nave no vote, unless they be equally divided."

I believe this may be the basis for a legal challenge to the filibuster.

 

[Genx87]

2005 was before filibuster abuse became rampant.

We'll see. I still think Reid is a spineless idiot, especially for leading people to believe he was going to institute real change and then not doing it.

Filibuster abuse has been rampant for a decade. That was only reason why Republicans sported the nuclear option back then. They backed off for the same reason democrats are backing off now.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's gotten substantively worse in the last few years. Which is why Reid should have insisted on real change.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The chances of a super majority republican senate is really low. What isnt low is the possibility republicans control with a simple majority. What would hurt democrats more? Republicans being able to ram through anything they want with a simple majority? Or the off the chance republicans get a super majority and abuse it?

Harry was logical in not changing the rules because he knows down the road there is a real chance the senate flips. It is the same thought process people should think about when a president destroys rights. They dont seem to care when their side is doing it. But they never think that maybe, just maybe, the other side will have that new found power.

Republicans can make deals with a few democrats and get changes done because democrats are not a homogeneous unit like Republicans are. So, we get into situations where Republicans pass something appeasing a few democrats that are on their side for that issue that can never be undone because they feel they need to stick to their failed policy and Democrats need a super majority to completely invalidate the one mind Republican agenda in order to make significant change; anything they try to pass needs to be so twisted just to get one Republican to change votes that nothing meaningful gets passed.

Having one large section of our legislature be a homogeneous unit to hoard far more power than it should was not the intent of it's design nor is it good for our country. This is why our country has been increasingly unable to adapt to the modern world/global economy/etc.

Allowing majorities would be advantageous because then they could actually adjust to each parties moves keeping what's good and throwing out what's bad. Whereas now, we have the pendulum swing one way and never back again in a significant way.

 

[Genx87]

Republicans can make deals with a few democrats and get changes done because democrats are not a homogeneous unit like Republicans are. So, we get into situations where Republicans pass something appeasing a few democrats that are on their side for that issue that can never be undone because they feel they need to stick to their failed policy and Democrats need a super majority to completely invalidate the one mind Republican agenda in order to make significant change; anything they try to pass needs to be so twisted just to get one Republican to change votes that nothing meaningful gets passed.

Having one large section of our legislature be a homogeneous unit to hoard far more power than it should was not the intent of it's design nor is it good for our country. This is why our country has been increasingly unable to adapt to the modern world/global economy/etc.

Allowing majorities would be advantageous because then they could actually adjust to each parties moves keeping what's good and throwing out what's bad. Whereas now, we have the pendulum swing one way and never back again in a significant way.

Oh please both parties hoard power when given the chance. As for acting like a single entity? Here is something to think about. A party when a minority will revert to its base. A party when it is a majority is typically a big tent party. Meaning they have more members and thus more idea's and opinions.

Stop with the victimhood. What didnt Obama get passed in his first administration? Bending and compromising is how democracy works. If Democrats are forced to utilize a super-majority to pass their legislation. I would say they arent bending at all.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Oh please both parties hoard power when given the chance. As for acting like a single entity? Here is something to think about. A party when a minority will revert to its base. A party when it is a majority is a big tent party. Meaning they have more members and thus more idea's and opinions.

Stop with the victimhood. What didnt Obama get passed in his first administration? Bending and compromising is how democracy works. If Democrats are forced to utilize a super-majority to pass their legislation. I would say they arent bending at all.

I'm sorry but the past thirty years doesn't follow your logic. Just saying what you wish doesn't make it true. Republican's never became big-tent under the Clinton/Bush majorities nor did Democrat's become homogeneous.

 

[Genx87]

I'm sorry but the past thirty years doesn't follow your logic. Just saying what you wish doesn't make it true. Republican's never became big-tent under the Clinton/Bush majorities nor did Democrat's become homogeneous.

Agree to disagree then. I am still wondering what major legislation Obama didnt get through in his first term.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Agree to disagree then. I am still wondering what legislation Obama didnt get through in his first term.

They had a few months of a real super majority before they lost members? If they actually did pass something in that time; it would have surely been awful anyway just because anything attempted would have been horribly thought out so I'm rather glad they didn't. Trying to jam as much change as possible into short periods of time because it's all you got isn't any good either.

Edit: err misread that. As I mentioned prior, everything that gets passed by dems in the senate is completely twisted to appease Republican's. When democrats propose essentially the republican plan and not a SINGLE Republican votes for it, you know there's a problem with Republicans. Democrat's passing Republican ideas of 10-20 years ago in the area the president wants is hardly something to look up to.