DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
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?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Historic change in senate rules - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread