User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Filibuster Reform Page [1]  
Str8BacardiL
************
41545 Posts
user info
edit post

Thanks Obama

1/24/2013 9:50:40 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

Mitch McConnell: "Our number one priority is to make Obama a two term president!"

1/24/2013 10:03:43 PM

lewisje
All American
9196 Posts
user info
edit post

thank harry reid

at least for getting that third-of-a-loaf

1/25/2013 7:51:55 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

I can respect the position that Harry Reid is in. Not that he is worried about what may or may not happen in 2014, but rather he is a professional senator and understands the true nature of the Senate as a deliberative body. While I don't fully understand why he couldn't have instituted the talking filibuster to make the minority work for it, I appreciate him making an attempt to be amiable to Bitch McConnell. We'll see where the senate Republicans' priorities are for sure.

1/25/2013 8:46:34 PM

Supplanter
supple anteater
21831 Posts
user info
edit post

A part of me is annoyed that bigger reform didn't happen, on the other hand it's not like the house will be cooperative with anything until the end of this decade and another round of redistricting, so it doesn't change much.

1/25/2013 8:53:16 PM

Str8BacardiL
************
41545 Posts
user info
edit post

I think to use a filibuster the opposing party should have to stand and speak for all eternity until one side or the other gives up.

Pussification of Ameri uh the Senate.

1/25/2013 9:03:14 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

Yeah, has anyone given a cogent, reasoned answer for why would couldn't, at a minimum, have a talking filibuster? Just being an obstructionist douche and then crowing about it on Faux News doesn't seem like a prudent way to govern.

1/25/2013 10:18:36 PM

OopsPowSrprs
All American
8383 Posts
user info
edit post

A talking filibuster would bring all other business to a screeching halt. The majority party would rather not have that. The idea I liked the most was the 41-vote rule to keep a filibuster, rather than the 60-vote rule to end it. Make them all show up if they want to filibuster so bad. And if the vote happens to be at 11:30 on Sunday night? Tough shit.

1/27/2013 9:10:09 AM

lewisje
All American
9196 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"A talking filibuster would bring all other business to a screeching halt."
only so long as the Rethugs could stand to stay away from their homes, families, fundraisers, and Faux News appearances

see now they can bring other business to a halt without needing to be in the chamber spouting their lies

1/27/2013 9:44:56 AM

OopsPowSrprs
All American
8383 Posts
user info
edit post

The majority could force the minority to talk more now with the rules the way they are. The reason it doesn't happen is because the majority doesn't want that. Believe me, the minority would have no problem forcing some freshman ideological asshole to carry the water.

1/27/2013 9:59:09 AM

IMStoned420
All American
15485 Posts
user info
edit post

The more things that we can get Republican senators to say on the record, the better off the country will be. People will find out very quickly how ridiculous they are.

1/27/2013 3:16:59 PM

eyewall41
All American
2204 Posts
user info
edit post

Mitch McConnell needs to take his obstructionist ass home.

1/27/2013 6:08:33 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6412 Posts
user info
edit post

bump - is shit about to get real?

[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 12:20 PM. Reason : I guess they are voting right now????]

11/21/2013 12:10:58 PM

RedGuard
All American
5596 Posts
user info
edit post



[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 3:21 PM. Reason : Nuclear launch detected.]

11/21/2013 3:20:42 PM

red baron 22
All American
2165 Posts
user info
edit post

I hate Republicans

but I Really Really Fucking Hate Democrats

11/21/2013 3:46:41 PM

dtownral
Suspended
26632 Posts
user info
edit post

whats wrong with the new changes? they seem sensible to me.

11/21/2013 3:50:15 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8179 Posts
user info
edit post

They'll be sensible until a Republican takes office, at which point they'll revert back to being an affront to democratic principles and a blatant attempt to disenfranchise the oppressed.

11/21/2013 4:13:22 PM

rjrumfel
All American
22092 Posts
user info
edit post

^This

Make no bones about it, I fucking hate the Democrats in Congress right now, but this is a bad idea. Sure Democrats, its your party right now up there so its ok, but just wait until its someone you don't like.

11/21/2013 5:04:50 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

But blocking DC judge appointments because some Republican deemed them to not have "the requisite case load" was just silly. Anyone looking at the number of filibusters since President Obama took office in comparison to history can clearly see that it was all for the sake of obstruction.

Also, McConnell brought this upon himself for going back on the agreement he made with Sen. Reid months ago.

11/21/2013 5:09:05 PM

rjrumfel
All American
22092 Posts
user info
edit post

As if the dems haven't gone back on any of their agreements.

11/21/2013 5:52:03 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

Because whatever you're thinking is totally germane to this topic...

11/21/2013 6:04:51 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6412 Posts
user info
edit post

The senate is supposed to give "advice and consent," not "never bring to the floor through use of parliamentary procedure rule." These people deserve debate and a vote IMO.

Gawd, when is congress going to start operating within the constitution

11/21/2013 7:41:42 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8179 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"But blocking DC judge appointments because some Republican deemed them to not have "the requisite case load" was just silly. Anyone looking at the number of filibusters since President Obama took office in comparison to history can clearly see that it was all for the sake of obstruction.

Also, McConnell brought this upon himself for going back on the agreement he made with Sen. Reid months ago."


Yes, it is silly. The rightness or wrongness of the current batch of GOP is irrelevant. The pendulum will swing back the other way, as it always does, and Congress will have one less tool in its belt to counter executive privilege.

Obama also has had some comically bad appointments, which is what I'd expect from an mostly inexperienced leader. Some of the worst ones were also from the Bush administration. If I were writing a book about government incompetence at the highest levels, I'd probably model the main villain after James Clapper.

[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 8:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/21/2013 8:24:29 PM

Kurtis636
All American
14984 Posts
user info
edit post

THere's also Obama's extraordinary use of out of session appointments while congress is in session to consider. It's not very surprising that republican senators have been obstructionist given Obama's disdain for the confirmation process.

Ultimately I think this is a bad idea. The executive branch already has too much power. Remember this the next time there is Republican in office with a republican senate.

[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 9:13 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

11/21/2013 9:12:44 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

Well fuck, what did you expect him to do when Republicans made his appointees wait, on average, 190 days only to be confirmed easily when they got around to it? Feel free to compare that to the number of days that any other modern president faced.

Republicans are pitching a fit because McConnell miscalculated the Democrats actually growing a spine and putting an end to their shenanigans. It's also enabled the president with the ability to finally fill the 93 vacancies throughout federal courts.

11/21/2013 9:57:21 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6412 Posts
user info
edit post

Executive privilege? The power to appoint a cabinet and federal judges is specifically laid out in the Constitution. The Senate is allowed to give "advice and consent." To me that says these people deserve at least debate and probably a vote. In the case of federal judges, I've seen some interpret the clause as requiring the president to appoint and fill each position (not doing so could allow the executive branch to diminish the judicial branch by leaving vacancies, also people have a right to trial in their district).


So far it seems like the worst suggested consequence is:

"You'll be sorry for this"


[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 10:30 PM. Reason : /muttered under breath]

11/21/2013 10:28:22 PM

Str8BacardiL
************
41545 Posts
user info
edit post

He should fill the other 93 vacancies with the most liberal judges he can find, the tea party would do the same thing if they had the opportunity.

11/21/2013 10:35:21 PM

moron
All American
32734 Posts
user info
edit post

I bet Kurt gets his info from Fox News.

11/21/2013 10:35:56 PM

RedGuard
All American
5596 Posts
user info
edit post

A Drudge special, but it was rather funny the 180 you see on both sides of this issue, depending on who's in power.

NY Times circa 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html?_r=1&) which harkens back to their thinking back in the mid 1990s:
Quote :
"A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide."


Today:
Quote :
"Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body. "


Plenty of more fun quotes from both sides of the aisle:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/21/246602648/headline

Quote :
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,

"It reminds [the American people] of the power grab. It reminds them of the way Democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else. ... Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate."

Then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell,

"The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedence to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It's time to move away from ... advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent.""


Quote :
"President Obama,

"I realize that neither party has been blameless for these tactics. They've developed over years, and it seems as if they've continually escalated. But today's pattern of obstruction — it just isn't normal. It's not what our founders envisioned. A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal."

Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama,

"What [the American people] don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.""


Of course, if you go back to 2005, there were similar comparisons, again showing the humorous turn around of both parties from 2005 back to 1995. Let's just call this what it is, a simple power grab by frustrated Democrats against very aggressive obstructionist Republicans. Just that the Democrats had the balls to actually go through with it. Can't say I blame them either.

11/22/2013 11:08:29 AM

synapse
play so hard
59891 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"but I Really Really Fucking Hate Democrats"


Big surprise there message_search.aspx?type=topic§ion=4&searchstring=&username=red+baron+22

Quote :
"As if the dems haven't gone back on any of their agreements."


Whenever I see the word "dems" I stop reading. Partisan stupidity is usually what follows.

11/22/2013 11:17:36 AM

moron
All American
32734 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet"


I think they're trying to get them to stand up and offer help.

It's pretty clear the current brand of mainstream conservatism would rather see government fail and break, than to use their legislative power to make things better.

If they can't just says "filibuster" they might actually take their job seriously, go to the committee meetings, and perhaps might have been able to offer ideas like phased enforcement of ACA, or helped keep a better eye on the process of creating the exchanges, etc.

This probably won't happen though.

11/22/2013 11:33:05 AM

dtownral
Suspended
26632 Posts
user info
edit post

11/22/2013 1:24:02 PM

1337 b4k4
All American
10033 Posts
user info
edit post

^ And so, as it always is in the government, the "fix" is altering the government to make the current majority even more powerful. Because clearly the people who are behaving badly don't have any legitimate grievances, it's simply a matter of the majority not having enough ability to force their will upon the minority for their own good. In fact, life would be so much better if only the majority had more power to force their will on the minorities.

[Edited on November 22, 2013 at 1:45 PM. Reason : asfg]

11/22/2013 1:41:32 PM

dtownral
Suspended
26632 Posts
user info
edit post

It's an issue of people exceeding their constitutional mandate

11/22/2013 1:48:24 PM

mbguess
shoegazer
2953 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ I'm still waiting to hear your plan....let me grab some popcorn.

11/22/2013 2:00:20 PM

A
All American
1428 Posts
user info
edit post

dtown raleigh... maybe that's because Obama is such an extremist his pick SHOULD have been blocked.

11/22/2013 2:19:53 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
52093 Posts
user info
edit post

You wanna know how to reform the filibuster? Stop backing down every time anyone breathes the word. Make the threat mean something. The best weapon against the filibuster is making them go through with the filibuster and then pillorying them when they do it unreasonably.

11/22/2013 10:07:16 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12317 Posts
user info
edit post

Here’s what then-Sen. Joe Biden said in 2005 when a Republican Senate majority threatened to use a similar “nuclear option” to allow a simple majority to carry the day:

“The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play .?.?. tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-democrats-naked-power-grab/2013/11/21/60ef049a-5306-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html

11/23/2013 5:37:12 PM

Str8BacardiL
************
41545 Posts
user info
edit post

The whole problem is pussification of the filibuster.

There was a time when to filibuster something meant to stand and speak non-stop to delay or impede voting, as long as the opposing side kept speaking there was no end to debate and therefore no vote. Ask Wendy Davis about it.

Since the requirement to speak or debate was removed it was so painless they used it all the time. I say regardless of who is in power let there be debate and then votes, let the american people see the positions their officials take and respond accordingly.

11/23/2013 8:31:00 PM

synapse
play so hard
59891 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^^ I'm still waiting to hear your plan....let me grab some popcorn."


+1

Quote :
"maybe that's because Obama is such an extremist his pick SHOULD have been blocked."


If you care to prove your assertion I'm sure we'd all love to hear it...let me grab some popcorn

11/23/2013 8:34:59 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
52093 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ +5

11/23/2013 10:38:53 PM

synapse
play so hard
59891 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"let there be debate and then votes"


+1. Let there be a fucking vote.

11/24/2013 1:39:58 AM

A Tanzarian
drip drip boom
10458 Posts
user info
edit post

Manchin says he favors a return to the talking filibuster.

I'm OK with that.

3/8/2021 10:51:13 AM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Filibuster Reform Page [1]  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2021 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.38 - our disclaimer.