RE: Historic change in senate rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Kirata -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 7:49:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Republicans have filibustered 168 judges and executive branch appointments in the last 5 years.

[image]http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/BZnpYpwCQAAHqzL.jpg[/image]

It would seem that the White House disagrees with you, though at least you can spell it. Here's a couple more opinions on the "nuclear option" from people who are obviously right-wing complainers and obstructionists:

It's illegal, it's wrong ~Harry Reid (2005)
An example of the arrogance of power ~Joe Biden (2005)

K.




DomKen -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 8:12:18 PM)

My bad. I recalled incorrectly. Still 82 is far more than any previous administration, obviously.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 8:17:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


It's illegal, it's wrong ~Harry Reid (2005)
An example of the arrogance of power ~Joe Biden (2005)

K.
[/font][/size]



Not any more....




kdsub -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 8:59:30 PM)

Lets just all be glad a bad rule is gone...now maybe the Senate can get down to the business of America. No one really loses here...Obama gets his appointments...the Republicans will get theirs if they take the senate... and maybe the American people will see the Senate working on their problems....but I doubt it.

Butch




TheHeretic -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:00:13 PM)

The Democrats are the biggest bunch of shortsighted douchebags imaginable, and this is SO going to come back around and bite their faces off. Do they never learn?

This is right in line with Teddy Kennedy pulling every string he could get to in 2004, changing the laws of Massachusetts to ensure a Republican governor wouldn't be appointing a Senator to fill the seat of soon-to-be President Kerry, only to send the filling of his seat to the voters instead of a Democrat governor, when he died in office.

The Democrats may easily become the Senate minority in a year, and oh how they will wail and gnash their teeth when a Republican President caters to the fundies with a pro-life nominee to the bench in a few short years.




mnottertail -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 5:32:00 AM)

Yeah, we await the coming slaughter, its always coming, isn't it.  If you can't slaughter them with ineptitude and magic underpants, I don't know what the nutsackers can pull out of their arsenal.




kalikshama -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 9:49:55 AM)

In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster

...Under the change, the Senate will be able to cut off debate on executive and judicial branch nominees with a simple majority rather than rounding up a supermajority of 60 votes. The new precedent established by the Senate on Thursday does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or legislation itself.

It represented the culmination of years of frustration over what Democrats denounced as a Republican campaign to stall the machinery of Congress, stymie President Obama’s agenda, and block his picks to cabinet posts and federal judgeships by insisting that virtually everything the Senate approves must be done by a supermajority.

After repeatedly threatening to change the filibuster, Mr. Reid decided to follow through when Republicans refused this week to back down from their effort to keep Mr. Obama from filling any of three vacancies on the most powerful appeals court in the country.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html?_r=0




kalikshama -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 10:19:20 AM)

Jon Stewart mocks Mitch McConnell's warning to Democrats: Someday you will want to be obstructionist a*sholes

Daily Show host Jon Stewart poked fun at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) warning to Democrats that ending the long-standing abuse of the filibuster by invoking what pundits insist on calling the “nuclear option” would come back to haunt them.

“Mark my words,” Stewart boomed on Thursday. “One day you Democrats will want to be obstructionist a*sholes making a mockery of our system of government. And who’ll be laughing then? Turtle Man.”

Stewart also mocked media coverage of Senate Democrats’ move to have non-Supreme Court nominations and other procedural matters be decided by a simple majority, rather than by having to get at least 60 votes to pass.

“So deciding to allow majority rules to incrementally increase governmental efficiency and presidential appointments is so unthinkably extreme that it’s the ‘nuclear option’?” Stewart asked. “It’s the Hiroshima of voting.”

Watch the video: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-november-21-2013-jennifer-lawrence




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 10:58:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, we await the coming slaughter, its always coming, isn't it.  If you can't slaughter them with ineptitude and magic underpants, I don't know what the nutsackers can pull out of their arsenal.


So you don't think the Republicans will hold the Presidency and the Senate at the same time again?




mnottertail -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 11:02:28 AM)

I have said many times they will not hold the presidency for at least after the next 2-3 elections for president.

I doubt their grabbing up the senate for awhile either, with those elections not being under the handicap of gerrymandered districts.

But I have also said, I see no republicans in the republican party these days. 




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 11:04:22 AM)

Interesting....




mnottertail -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 11:09:49 AM)

Yeah, and I could be wrong as hell, Fats, and plenty will say I am, but I don't know, there aint much laying around in the shadows out there for prez material that side.   And their handicap with the idiots in the house that talk into microphones and give interviews is unlikely to have people going around and looking up statesman or stentorian in connection with that party.  Frankly, I think they are floundering.





Kirata -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 12:28:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

The Democrats may easily become the Senate minority in a year, and oh how they will wail and gnash their teeth...

Been there, done that...

Of all the hollow arguments Senate Republicans have made in their attempt to scrap the opposition's right to have a say on President Bush's judicial nominees, the one that's most hypocritical insists that history is on their side in demanding a "simple up-or-down vote" on the Senate floor. Republicans and Democrats have used a variety of tactics, from filibuster threats to stealthy committee inaction on individual nominations, in blocking hundreds of presidential appointments across history, including about one in five Supreme Court nominees. This is all part of the Senate's time-honored deliberative role and of its protection of minority rights, which Republican leaders would now desecrate in overreaching from their majority perch. ~New York Times, 2005

But, that was then. Now their tune has changed...

Democracy Returns to the Senate

Fucking ludicrous.

K.




DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 1:12:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

The Democrats are the biggest bunch of shortsighted douchebags imaginable, and this is SO going to come back around and bite their faces off.

Considering the general disrepute of the Rs, and the fact that the Obamacare mess is being cleaned up, and the fact that the Ds are finally showing some balls, I don't think we need be too concerned about the Senate in 2014. The Radicals may - may - pull in 1 - 2 seats, but I don't see the Ds losing enough to matter. After all, they can count on the VP for any tie breakers, so the Rs have to gain - what? - 5 - 6 seats?
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]




DesideriScuri -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/22/2013 3:39:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster
...Under the change, the Senate will be able to cut off debate on executive and judicial branch nominees with a simple majority rather than rounding up a supermajority of 60 votes. The new precedent established by the Senate on Thursday does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or legislation itself.
It represented the culmination of years of frustration over what Democrats denounced as a Republican campaign to stall the machinery of Congress, stymie President Obama’s agenda, and block his picks to cabinet posts and federal judgeships by insisting that virtually everything the Senate approves must be done by a supermajority.
After repeatedly threatening to change the filibuster, Mr. Reid decided to follow through when Republicans refused this week to back down from their effort to keep Mr. Obama from filling any of three vacancies on the most powerful appeals court in the country.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html?_r=0


What's really odd, is that this legislation is supposed to stop the GOP (or, more generally, the minority party) from filibustering appointments and nominees. How is this really a "landmark" vote? Yes, the Senate is that branch that accepts or denies Presidential nominees, and there is nothing the House can do about it, but, meh.

The Legislative filibuster is unchanged, and that is likely to be a truly bigger deal, imo.




farglebargle -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/23/2013 4:00:10 AM)

quote:


The Legislative filibuster is unchanged, and that is likely to be a truly bigger deal, imo.


Just as long as the GOP can keep their crazies in line. This is punishment for the failed hijacking attempt. Remember back when John Boehner became Nancy Pelosi's bitch in exchange for her saving his ass from the crazy tea party?

Actions have consequences.




joether -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/23/2013 4:12:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster
...Under the change, the Senate will be able to cut off debate on executive and judicial branch nominees with a simple majority rather than rounding up a supermajority of 60 votes. The new precedent established by the Senate on Thursday does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or legislation itself.
It represented the culmination of years of frustration over what Democrats denounced as a Republican campaign to stall the machinery of Congress, stymie President Obama’s agenda, and block his picks to cabinet posts and federal judgeships by insisting that virtually everything the Senate approves must be done by a supermajority.
After repeatedly threatening to change the filibuster, Mr. Reid decided to follow through when Republicans refused this week to back down from their effort to keep Mr. Obama from filling any of three vacancies on the most powerful appeals court in the country.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html?_r=0


What's really odd, is that this legislation is supposed to stop the GOP (or, more generally, the minority party) from filibustering appointments and nominees. How is this really a "landmark" vote? Yes, the Senate is that branch that accepts or denies Presidential nominees, and there is nothing the House can do about it, but, meh.

The Legislative filibuster is unchanged, and that is likely to be a truly bigger deal, imo.


The legislation is due to Democrats being tired of the bullshit from the Republican/Tea Party. The idea of the filibuster was to be used ONLY during critical moments when the minority felt a simply majority needed more of the Senate to sign off on. But the Republican/Tea Party has used it so often and on even petty things, that it reduces the purpose of the tool to an abusive level. For example, if one person shouted 'Fire' in a crowded theater, that would be bad, right? What happens when people become free to do so without penalty? It becomes so normal and common place that when an actual fire is presence, scores of Americans go up in flames. There is a reason why the filibuster is a tool that should NEVER be abused. Nor never used for cheap and petty political points. Democrats have used it from time to time as well in the past, and I'm not going to defend them there on that. But as I said, its one thing to use the tool and its another to abuse the privilege.

I do not think many Democrats REALLY wanted to do this at all. But to be honest, the Republican/Tea Party have successfully undermined the US Government way more times than they have helped. They have used every trick (clean or dirty) in the book and even created a few new ones. Many of the people to fill those positions were well qualified and had the credentials to boot! They were filibuster because Republican/Tea Party felt the person in question was 'too liberal' for the position. Was the person too liberal? Hell no! But the misinformation machine they had going 24/7 would make someone think they were. The Republicans are accused of a great number of crimes to date. Its really to bad that conservatives are just to stupid and ignorant to hold these people to even a billionth of the accountability and responsibility with power as they slam the President on an hourly basis. If conservatives actually did that, we'd have better government almost over night! Conservatives bitch day-in and day-out about bad government, and yet, here they are, year after year, election after election, electing and re-electing the very people creating and maintaining said bad government!

An if Republican/Tea Party claimed the Senate, do you honestly and really think they'll show proper responsibility with the power? Or use it to abuse things more? They have a very long history of being petty, ignorant, and most of all foolish. So kid gets a new car for his 16th birthday and drivers license. He goes and cracks up the car. So the father buys him a new one and that one is cracked up within two weeks. The kid just laughs about like its a total joke, and then gets flipping angry when the father gets him a POJ to drive in. Just like the kid, Republican/Tea Party simply think its a joke and something to not take serious (that of running then nation). These people, the ones you vote into office are absolutely out of control, insane, and lustful for power. How are these three concepts....NOT....red flags being raised?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/23/2013 5:38:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster
...Under the change, the Senate will be able to cut off debate on executive and judicial branch nominees with a simple majority rather than rounding up a supermajority of 60 votes. The new precedent established by the Senate on Thursday does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or legislation itself.
It represented the culmination of years of frustration over what Democrats denounced as a Republican campaign to stall the machinery of Congress, stymie President Obama’s agenda, and block his picks to cabinet posts and federal judgeships by insisting that virtually everything the Senate approves must be done by a supermajority.
After repeatedly threatening to change the filibuster, Mr. Reid decided to follow through when Republicans refused this week to back down from their effort to keep Mr. Obama from filling any of three vacancies on the most powerful appeals court in the country.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html?_r=0

What's really odd, is that this legislation is supposed to stop the GOP (or, more generally, the minority party) from filibustering appointments and nominees. How is this really a "landmark" vote? Yes, the Senate is that branch that accepts or denies Presidential nominees, and there is nothing the House can do about it, but, meh.
The Legislative filibuster is unchanged, and that is likely to be a truly bigger deal, imo.

The legislation is due to Democrats being tired of the bullshit from the Republican/Tea Party. The idea of the filibuster was to be used ONLY during critical moments when the minority felt a simply majority needed more of the Senate to sign off on. But the Republican/Tea Party has used it so often and on even petty things, that it reduces the purpose of the tool to an abusive level. For example, if one person shouted 'Fire' in a crowded theater, that would be bad, right? What happens when people become free to do so without penalty? It becomes so normal and common place that when an actual fire is presence, scores of Americans go up in flames. There is a reason why the filibuster is a tool that should NEVER be abused. Nor never used for cheap and petty political points. Democrats have used it from time to time as well in the past, and I'm not going to defend them there on that. But as I said, its one thing to use the tool and its another to abuse the privilege.
I do not think many Democrats REALLY wanted to do this at all. But to be honest, the Republican/Tea Party have successfully undermined the US Government way more times than they have helped. They have used every trick (clean or dirty) in the book and even created a few new ones. Many of the people to fill those positions were well qualified and had the credentials to boot! They were filibuster because Republican/Tea Party felt the person in question was 'too liberal' for the position. Was the person too liberal? Hell no! But the misinformation machine they had going 24/7 would make someone think they were. The Republicans are accused of a great number of crimes to date. Its really to bad that conservatives are just to stupid and ignorant to hold these people to even a billionth of the accountability and responsibility with power as they slam the President on an hourly basis. If conservatives actually did that, we'd have better government almost over night! Conservatives bitch day-in and day-out about bad government, and yet, here they are, year after year, election after election, electing and re-electing the very people creating and maintaining said bad government!
An if Republican/Tea Party claimed the Senate, do you honestly and really think they'll show proper responsibility with the power? Or use it to abuse things more? They have a very long history of being petty, ignorant, and most of all foolish. So kid gets a new car for his 16th birthday and drivers license. He goes and cracks up the car. So the father buys him a new one and that one is cracked up within two weeks. The kid just laughs about like its a total joke, and then gets flipping angry when the father gets him a POJ to drive in. Just like the kid, Republican/Tea Party simply think its a joke and something to not take serious (that of running then nation). These people, the ones you vote into office are absolutely out of control, insane, and lustful for power. How are these three concepts....NOT....red flags being raised?


GOP = bad, evil.

Yawn.

Unless you are actively vying for the DNC Chairpersonship, you really need to update your view of the other side.

Do you agree or disagree that the legislative filibuster is unchanged?

Do you agree or disagree that the legislative filibuster is a bigger deal?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875