Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[michal1980]

Two things are clear to me.

The two sides should have come together and figured it out.

If they don't and if one side is more to blame for that, you don't go nuclear. You go back and figure out how to come together to figure it out and if one side is to blame you don't go nuclear.

Bottom line, you avoid doing what the dems in the senate just did at all costs and you find another way. Even if you think there is no other way, you don't go nuclear.

Hopefully dems change the rule back or repubs gain control and change this rule back.

When the country is as split as we are we don't start jackhammering the fizzures in the foundation of our government just so we can say we did something. Slow down, fix the foundation.

well said.

 

[Matt1970]

Say it ain't so harry and obama...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkXjYohzAOY

OMG, hypocrisy overload.

 

[michal1980]

this video is brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ


democrats a bunch of fucking morons

 

[monovillage]

this video is brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ


democrats a bunch of fucking morons

Not morons, they're lying scum, along with their supporters.

 

[shira]

I wonder if anything interesting would pop up in the search if we search for 2005 threads about the reverse situation, where Democrats were filibustering Bush nominations...

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.

 

[shira]

and Reid is being honest?

He's on record saying the nuclear option was going to destroy america. Well thanks Reid for destroying america.

Reid was being honest. But then the Republicans did something WORSE then the nuclear option: They decided to filibuster everything. When faced with the choice of two evils, Reid chose the lesser evil.

I notice how you're completely ignoring the Republicans big lie. Democrats agreed to hold back on the nuclear option if Republicans agreed that the filibuster would be used to block nominees to the federal courts only in extreme cases. Well, the Republicans went back on their word and decided they would block all Obama nominees to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Republicans went back on their word, and the Democrats are keeping their promise.

 

[cubby1223]

Reid was being honest.

Ah, our resident apologist. How have you been? Good to see you never change.

 

[dmcowen674]

Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

I can't tell, the folk who forced the issue or the folk who voted for it?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579211881413579404

Come on, you know better, it's the Republicans fault of course.

 

[khon]

Come on, you know better, it's the Republicans fault of course.

Only partially.

The Republicans were filibustering more than ever before, but the same could have been said about the Democrats under Bush, or the Republicans under Clinton. It's been a general trend upwards for a while now, and both parties share part of the blame for that.

 

[fskimospy]

Once again, it was to their advantage during Bush. They did not do so.

Yes, at one point the Republicans honored their half of the deal. They have since reneged on their half of the deal. Your argument is that they would have honored this deal in say, 2016 because they honored it in 2005, conveniently ignoring the fact that they broke their promise from 2010 to 2013. Your argument is based in selectively ignoring this inconvenient fact.

I shouldn't have to tell you how dumb that is.

 

[trenchfoot]

Why are people afraid of simple majority? This is a Republic, elections should have consequences. This country is ungovernable if a super majority is required.

Excellent point. In this paricular case of how the Senate Repubs were using the filibuster, they were actually setting a pecedent of "rule by the minority over the majority". By invoking the nuclear option, all Reid did was to re-establish majority rule, which is exactly as it should be with the thought in mind that the Repubs were to use the filibuster rule only in extraordinary circumstances but instead chose to renege on that agreement and used the filibuster to block ALL nominations regardless of qualifications.

The common reasoning of using "tyranny by the majority" to argue against what Reid did in this specific situation holds no water as the Repubs were blatantly abusing the filibuster rule to gain control of the Senate. Therefore, as unusual as it may sound, the minority Repubs were in actuality the perpetrators rather than the victims in this specific instance.

 

[ivwshane]

Just a point of fact, the term "nuclear option" was coined by a republican named Trent Lott. I guess the dems have him to thank for this option

 

[sportage]

Seriously, I still don't see why the outrage.
51 majority votes to pass anything seems logical.
If for instance Romney had received 1 electoral vote over Obama in the last election, guess what, we'd have president Romney today.
If your and your friends of 10 are voting on which movie to go see in the theater, and hands raised Captain Philips wins by one vote, guess what, it's Captain Philips and popcorn for tonight.
So why not 51 majority?
Makes perfect sense. And it's fair even when related to your own life.
Requiring 60 would be perverting the system. Which it was.

 

[irishScott]

Seriously, I still don't see why the outrage.
51 majority votes to pass anything seems logical.
If for instance Romney had received 1 electoral vote over Obama in the last election, guess what, we'd have president Romney today.
If your and your friends of 10 are voting on which movie to go see in the theater, and hands raised Captain Philips wins by one vote, guess what, it's Captain Philips and popcorn for tonight.
So why not 51 majority?
Makes perfect sense. And it's fair even when related to your own life.
Requiring 60 would be perverting the system. Which it was.

So you would be fine removing the 2/3 rule to override a presidential veto?

 

[michal1980]

Washingtonpost opinions had some good points.

One I don't think I brought up before, is that this will kill bipartasinship anymore, and has now transformed the senate into the house; and everyone knows how well the house is functioning with single party rule.

The filibuster forces bipartisanship, and it slows down government.

The democrats killed any chance of bipartisanship (and currently they were much more bipartisan then the house). So for all the talk about working together, the democrat's just took the ball and went home. They made it clear they don't want to work with republicans, now and forever, and one would think they know that now the republicans don't have to, and wont work with them.

So lets all thank Reid for doubling down on dysfunction and the further radicalization of the USA.

Federal courts are going to turn into shams. How legitimate is a court stacked with radical partisans, (on either side). Where depending on your party you might get far different treatment. There was a reason why right now, the correlation between judges verdicts and party of appointment are only loosely correlated. Expect this to dramatically change that the president no longer needs the advise of the senate.

The resident liberals think this a good outcome. Because right now they only see themselves as being in power, and can never see republicans being in power again. But things can, and do change. one day there will be a conservative president, with a republican senate. And if the republicans have any sort of balls, and memory, they'll stack the court with pro lifers

 

[TerryMathews]

Washingtonpost opinions had some good points.

One I don't think I brought up before, is that this will kill bipartasinship anymore, and has now transformed the senate into the house; and everyone knows how well the house is functioning with single party rule.

The filibuster forces bipartisanship, and it slows down government.

The democrats killed any chance of bipartisanship (and currently they were much more bipartisan then the house). So for all the talk about working together, the democrat's just took the ball and went home. They made it clear they don't want to work with republicans, now and forever, and one would think they know that now the republicans don't have to, and wont work with them.

So lets all thank Reid for doubling down on dysfunction and the further radicalization of the USA.

Federal courts are going to turn into shams. How legitimate is a court stacked with radical partisans, (on either side). Where depending on your party you might get far different treatment. There was a reason why right now, the correlation between judges verdicts and party of appointment are only loosely correlated. Expect this to dramatically change that the president no longer needs the advise of the senate.

The resident liberals think this a good outcome. Because right now they only see themselves as being in power, and can never see republicans being in power again. But things can, and do change. one day there will be a conservative president, with a republican senate. And if the republicans have any sort of balls, and memory, they'll stack the court with pro lifers

Republicans don't even have to be in power to make this work to their advantage. All they need is a few to cross party lines and things like passing a budget that defunds Obamacare just became possible.

Shortsighted doesn't even begin to describe it.

 

[trenchfoot]

Two things are clear to me.

The two sides should have come together and figured it out.

If they don't and if one side is more to blame for that, you don't go nuclear. You go back and figure out how to come together to figure it out and if one side is to blame you don't go nuclear.

Bottom line, you avoid doing what the dems in the senate just did at all costs and you find another way. Even if you think there is no other way, you don't go nuclear.

Hopefully dems change the rule back or repubs gain control and change this rule back.

When the country is as split as we are we don't start jackhammering the fizzures in the foundation of our government just so we can say we did something. Slow down, fix the foundation.

Just so I know where you stand on this issue, would you feel exactly the same way you just described if the roles were reversed?

And how do you go about "figuring things out" when the Repubs in the Senate were absolutely not going to let Obama fill those court appointments via filibuster that the Senate Repubs felt were too near and dear to their ideologically biased hearts? And let's not forget that it was the Senate Repubs that first reneged on the deal to use the filibuster for extraordinary cases only and decided to filibuster ALL of Obama's picks on purely ideological grounds.

Why conservatives keep ignoring this FACT in order to argue against using the nulcear option in the narrowly defined way that Reid used it is simply amazing.

If it's coming together and figuring things out that you want, then shouldn't you also include the idea of the Repubs habitually abusing the filibuster rule to PREVENT the two sides from having to "come together and figuring things out"?

 

[Jimzz]

Republicans don't even have to be in power to make this work to their advantage. All they need is a few to cross party lines and things like passing a budget that defunds Obamacare just became possible.

Shortsighted doesn't even begin to describe it.

Did anybody actually read what happened or just go by the BS talking points?

The filibuster is still in affect for most items. This only requires a basic majority for executive and judicial appointments, not including the Supreme Court.

So republicans can still filibuster the budgets and other items brought up.

 

[Bitek]

Tell that to Germany circa 1937.

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?

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans don't even have to be in power to make this work to their advantage. All they need is a few to cross party lines and things like passing a budget that defunds Obamacare just became possible.

Shortsighted doesn't even begin to describe it.

Uhmm, no.

Budgetary legislation can be passed through reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered. They have always had the ability to pass a budget defunding the ACA with a simple majority vote, they just don't have the votes for it.

Funny thing is that budget reconciliation itself is a (relatively) recent creation.

 

[fskimospy]

Washingtonpost opinions had some good points.

One I don't think I brought up before, is that this will kill bipartasinship anymore, and has now transformed the senate into the house; and everyone knows how well the house is functioning with single party rule.

The filibuster forces bipartisanship, and it slows down government.

The democrats killed any chance of bipartisanship (and currently they were much more bipartisan then the house). So for all the talk about working together, the democrat's just took the ball and went home. They made it clear they don't want to work with republicans, now and forever, and one would think they know that now the republicans don't have to, and wont work with them.

So lets all thank Reid for doubling down on dysfunction and the further radicalization of the USA.

Federal courts are going to turn into shams. How legitimate is a court stacked with radical partisans, (on either side). Where depending on your party you might get far different treatment. There was a reason why right now, the correlation between judges verdicts and party of appointment are only loosely correlated. Expect this to dramatically change that the president no longer needs the advise of the senate.

The resident liberals think this a good outcome. Because right now they only see themselves as being in power, and can never see republicans being in power again. But things can, and do change. one day there will be a conservative president, with a republican senate. And if the republicans have any sort of balls, and memory, they'll stack the court with pro lifers

Can you give some examples of the bipartisan achievements that you expected but that are now derailed by this action?

 

[Mursilis]

So you would be fine removing the 2/3 rule to override a presidential veto?

The veto override is a Constitutional mandate. The filibuster is not - it is merely a procedural rule. I'm fine with this 'nuclear' option - in the case of appointments, both parties have abused the filibuster on occasion so, like a parent has to tell the children sometimes, if you can't share a toy properly, that toy gets taken away.

 

[michal1980]

Can you give some examples of the bipartisan achievements that you expected but that are now derailed by this action?

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.

 

[werepossum]

The veto override is a Constitutional mandate. The filibuster is not - it is merely a procedural rule. I'm fine with this 'nuclear' option - in the case of appointments, both parties have abused the filibuster on occasion so, like a parent as to tell the children sometimes, if you can't share a toy properly, that toy gets taken away.

But - but you're missing the point that when Democrats did it, it was noble and good!

Hopefully the next time the Pubbies have the White House and the Senate, they change the rules again to include SCOTUS nominees in the new 50+1 deal, an area where Dems have long been intransigent and the Pubs have repeatedly crossed the aisle.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

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.