Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[michal1980]

Lol. Violence against women act has already passed. The Republicans have made it very clear that nothing was being passed on immigration, the problem with the farm bill is a house/senate divide that was present with or without the filibuster, etc.

Ie: this changes nothing in terms of legislation that would be passed. Remember, when your party already obstructs everything, threatening obstruction gets you nothing.

I was wrong on the Violence against women act (a stupid law).


But if you don't think this changes the tone in Washington for the worse, then your stupider then I thought. I just thought you were a hack before, now just ignorant.


How does going hyper nuclear partisan, fix the partisan divide in Washington?

 

[K1052]

anything to do with immigration

I think that one is already decided. They are going to run some guys with hispanic names and only print the party platform in sanskrit. After all it's a "messaging" problem that the GOP has and not a position problem.

 

[fskimospy]

I was wrong on the Violence against women act (a stupid law).


But if you don't think this changes the tone in Washington for the worse, then your stupider then I thought. I just thought you were a hack before, now just ignorant.


How does going hyper nuclear partisan, fix the partisan divide in Washington?

This ignorant guy apparently has a better idea of the legislative agenda than you do, so what does that say?

The partisan divide in Washington is a symptom, not the cause. The partisan divide in Washington cannot be fixed by actions inside Washington because the problem isn't with them, it's with us. The government shutdown/debt ceiling debacle is a great example. Look at all the threats of primary challenges, etc that conservatives made to Republicans who had the audacity not to crash the world economy in order to get rid of a domestic health care bill they didn't like. When people attempt to bridge the partisan divide in Washington they are rewarded with primary challenges and branded as RINOs (or DINOs) or traitors.

Politicians respond to the incentives given to them by their constituents. You want a lesser partisan divide? Start voting for the less conservative candidate in the next Republican primary.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

By all means get the advantage now as things may not be the same after the 2014 elections.

 

[fskimospy]

By all means get the advantage now as things may not be the same after the 2014 elections.

Very true! The Republicans have a decent shot of taking the Senate in 2014. They will most likely lose it again in 2016 if they do, but they have a chance.

 

[TerryMathews]

Really? That's the root of the freak out?

The thin line between us and Hitler is a filabuster?

Oh how did this country ever survive until 1975?

You asked for an example of majority rule gone amok and made the challenge that "the majority" could put a stop to it.

Don't be pissed that I cited a good counter point. And certainly don't transform my statement into something it isn't. It makes you look petty and ignorant.

 

[Gunslinger08]

The lifetime appointment of judges has bothered me for a while, considering the enormous power they have in determining case law and (for state and federal supreme courts) in determining the interpretation and constitutionality of legislation. I know that judges are intended to be impartial and above politics, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that this isn't the case. Nobody is truly impartial and we tend to know how various judges will rule well in advance of an actual ruling, mostly based on their political ideology and that of the people who nominated them.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

mmmm...

 

[fskimospy]

The lifetime appointment of judges has bothered me for a while, considering the enormous power they have in determining case law and (for state and federal supreme courts) in determining the interpretation and constitutionality of legislation. I know that judges are intended to be impartial and above politics, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that this isn't the case. Nobody is truly impartial and we tend to know how various judges will rule well in advance of an actual ruling, mostly based on their political ideology and that of the people who nominated them.

I mean the answer to that is pretty simple and less nefarious than you think. The constitution was made purposefully ambiguous, meaning that two people can legitimately and reasonably come to two different conclusions from the same set of facts. Sure presidents select people who interpret the constitution in the same way they do, but that doesn't mean a lack of impartiality, it just means they think the constitution means a certain thing.

 

[hal2kilo]

defense act. violence against women act, anything to do with immigration , farm policy.

If I was a republican. I wouldn't work with these radical liberals. I'd give them nothing at this point. They want to go nuclear. They should own it.

Bonehead has already stated emphatically that there will be no conference on the immigration bill.

How is that bipartizanship working out so far. You know as well as I do that there wasn't going to be any meanful legislation passed for the remainder of this administration.

 

[michal1980]

Bonehead has already stated emphatically that there will be no conference on the immigration bill.

How is that bipartizanship working out so far. You know as well as I do that there wasn't going to be any meanful legislation passed for the remainder of this administration.

good. This administration is terrible.

Prime example - Obamafail. Written voted on and passed by democrats. Currently responsible for millions losing insurance.

 

[K1052]

Bonehead has already stated emphatically that there will be no conference on the immigration bill.

How is that bipartizanship working out so far. You know as well as I do that there wasn't going to be any meanful legislation passed for the remainder of this administration.

It's not really a surprise that there will be no near term movement on it. Any possible progress on immigration would come after the midterms since they don't need to turn out anyone other than the base and to starve the Dems on issues that could turn out their voters.

Then again they would probably interpret any seat gains to be an endorsement of their existing agenda and launch the same rocket fueled boat of fail for the 2016 elections.

 

[Matt1970]

The United States is a representative Republic with majority rule and minority rights and the Democrats just took the rights away from the minority.

You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever - Joe Biden 2005

 

[rudeguy]

Bonehead has already stated emphatically that there will be no conference on the immigration bill.

How is that bipartizanship working out so far. You know as well as I do that there wasn't going to be any meanful legislation passed for the remainder of this administration.

It works great when the leader of the other side says they are completely unwilling to negotiate. It works awesome!

 

[Moonbeam]

Whether the rule change will prove to be a good thing or not for the future, one thing is at least obvious to me, that we create what we fear. And since science has already proven that the conservative brain is more magnetized and affected by fear and disgust than liberal brains, we should be able to predict that it will be conservatives who will be acting in such a way as to create what they fear.

This notion, that we create what we fear, is known and has been known to students of the mind either in the area of religion or psychology, but isn't, I think commonly understood. I have described its workings elsewhere and won't do so again here. We see it in such expressions as, be careful what you wish for, or out of the fire into the frying pan, etc., so people often actually know what they don't actually realize what they know, but anyway.

What it seems, then, that Republicans have done is to fear liberal inspired change so greatly that they have gone to extremes in blocking it from happening. They have become so dogmatically adamant and have demonized liberals so greatly that they have destroyed the ability of the country's government as a whole to function. They believe this is a good thing, but the majority of the nation does not. Liberals, in effect, have been exhausted of their very considerable liberal patience, by fanatical efforts to stop any action they attempt by conservatives who believe they have a duty to do so. They have, essentially, backed up water so high behind a dam that the dam has failed. Now the water above the fracture lines will flow again and the folk with behind the will of the majority will be able to act out of their vision. The oak breaks where the willow bends. The wind is a natural force of nature that must be reckoned with. Conservatives have caused what they feared. They could not accommodate or compromise with the will of the people. They convinced themselves that the will of the people is evil and that an elite minority has the right to stymie that evil. This is the result of that part of conservative morality that responds to fear and disgust. They created the notion that they are to be feared and that they are disgusting by convincing the majority that what is to be feared and is disgusting, is them. To demonize others is to create that bed for yourself. All that is required is fanatical intention, true but irrational belief.

 

[michal1980]

Whether the rule change will prove to be a good thing or not for the future, one thing is at least obvious to me, that we create what we fear. And since science has already proven that the conservative brain is more magnetized and affected by fear and disgust than liberal brains, we should be able to predict that it will be conservatives who will be acting in such a way as to create what they fear.

This notion, that we create what we fear, is known and has been known to students of the mind either in the area of religion or psychology, but isn't, I think commonly understood. I have described its workings elsewhere and won't do so again here. We see it in such expressions as, be careful what you wish for, or out of the fire into the frying pan, etc., so people often actually know what they don't actually realize what they know, but anyway.

What it seems, then, that Republicans have done is to fear liberal inspired change so greatly that they have gone to extremes in blocking it from happening. They have become so dogmatically adamant and have demonized liberals so greatly that they have destroyed the ability of the country's government as a whole to function. They believe this is a good thing, but the majority of the nation does not. Liberals, in effect, have been exhausted of their very considerable liberal patience, by fanatical efforts to stop any action they attempt by conservatives who believe they have a duty to do so. They have, essentially, backed up water so high behind a dam that the dam has failed. Now the water above the fracture lines will flow again and the folk with behind the will of the majority will be able to act out of their vision. The oak breaks where the willow bends. The wind is a natural force of nature that must be reckoned with. Conservatives have caused what they feared. They could not accommodate or compromise with the will of the people. They convinced themselves that the will of the people is evil and that an elite minority has the right to stymie that evil. This is the result of that part of conservative morality that responds to fear and disgust. They created the notion that they are to be feared and that they are disgusting by convincing the majority that what is to be feared and is disgusting, is them. To demonize others is to create that bed for yourself. All that is required is fanatical intention, true but irrational belief.

Take your meds.

Liberals called the republicans terrorists. because they are afraid.

Or is it that when liberals call others terrorists, that's not demonizing them? LOL

 

[Matt1970]

Take your meds.

Liberals called the republicans terrorists. because they are afraid.

Or is it that when liberals call others terrorists, that's not demonizing them? LOL

And they fear guns painted black or with pistol grips, they fear free will, they fear self determination, the filibuster, CO2, a manger scene, the cross, having "In God We Trust" on our money, the rich, corporations, a balanced budget, sasquatch, autonomy, having to tell the truth, Fox News......

 

[trenchfoot]

After doing a little more thinking on this matter, I kind'a feel some sympathy for the Senate Repubs in the sense that they are a victim of their own ideology and the victim of the minority Tea Partiers in their midst who represent the extremist view of the Repub mindset. These Senate Repubs who freely admitted that totally obstructing the business of gov't was what their job was have finally got their well-deserved comeuppance IMO.

I wonder what gave these Senate Repubs the idea that they could just go on filibustering to their heart's content without being penalized for it. And it seems our resident conservatives think that total obstruction is somehow a form of "compromise" from the way they go on and on about it.

Excessive and abusive use of the filibuster of the likes never seen before is somehow the new "traditional way of legislating" because it was to the Repubs advantage and weapon of choice for "compromising"? And since that "weapon of mass obstruction" has finally been sidestepped after enduring it for five+ years there's shock and surprise by its practitioners that the Dems finally got fed up with it and did something about it? Five years of self-admitted obstruction isn't enough? I guess not.

That seconds-too-late wheeling and dealing by the Senate Repubs to stop the bomb from dropping by offering Obama a few "free passes" on his appointment list was, in a word, pathetic. It took these Senate Repubs to actually step over the point of no return before they could bring themselves to try to strike up some kind of deal with Reid which was just too late, and it's something they would never have done if the status quo was kept in place.

Having majority rule is supposed to offer some semblance of where the people of the nation want the nation to go. The Senate Repub's blatant and egregious use of the filibuster effectively took that away from the people and something had to be done by force because the Repubs weren't going to give up a single thing, not one single iota of compromise in the matter of Obama's court appointments.

Compromise? The Repub Senate and House version of compromising by blocking anything and everything they can including their own legislation? Is that what "compromising" means now? Take everything and give nothing in return? Is that it? Really?

No thanks. Tea Party, you gotta go. Ask Boehner, he'll tell you.

 

[fskimospy]

The United States is a representative Republic with majority rule and minority rights and the Democrats just took the rights away from the minority.

You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever - Joe Biden 2005

I don't think you understand what that is all about. The way the senate was constitutionally constructed to protect minority rights was to give two senators to every state regardless of population. The filibuster is simply a rule of the senate that was never even attempted until after all the framers were dead.

To say that the filibuster is what protected minority rights and that it's abolition in this case represents the removal of the minority's rights means that the Constitution never intended to protect minority rights. Since conservatives are all about original intent, this should make you happy.

 

[Paul98]

The problem I see happening is that the democrats did this for a reason, the republican abuse in blocking for no reasonable reason. Then this opens it up for the republicans in the future to simply abuse it, and not only will they but they will go beyond anything the democrats do.

 

[rudder]

Look at the chart I posted. Democrats filibustered Bush HALF as much per year as Republicans are filibustering Obama.

Repubs changed the rules, so they're getting spanked.

Maybe because Bush was willing to compromise. And I don't recall A plan by Bush to stack the court with right wing judges who would grant agencies like the EPA approval to mandate laws rather than congress.

If Obama get his liberal wish list in the DC court district.... Then watch out.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Maybe because Bush was willing to compromise. And I don't recall A plan by Bush to stack the court with right wing judges who would grant agencies like the EPA approval to mandate laws rather than congress.

If Obama get his liberal wish list in the DC court district.... Then watch out.

Obama is willing to "compromise" as well as long as he gets everything he wants.

 

[xBiffx]

The problem I see happening is that the democrats did this for a reason, the republican abuse in blocking for no reasonable reason. Then this opens it up for the republicans in the future to simply abuse it, and not only will they but they will go beyond anything the democrats do.

With the amount of projection in that post, you could open up your own movie theater.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe because Bush was willing to compromise. And I don't recall A plan by Bush to stack the court with right wing judges who would grant agencies like the EPA approval to mandate laws rather than congress.

If Obama get his liberal wish list in the DC court district.... Then watch out.

I'm genuinely curious about what you even mean by this post. Bush appointed quite a few judges to the DC Court of Appeals, more than Obama has. All of his appointees were right wing, at least one of them dramatically so.

What do you mean by 'stack' the court, anyway? Are you trying to say 'pack' the court? This has been a frequent refrain by conservatives when talking about this issue, but it's a major misuse or misunderstanding of the term. Filling open seats is not court packing.

 

[IGBT]

a naked power grab. What comes around goes around. If you like your senate rules..you can keep your senate rules.