• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Senate changes filibuster FINALLY

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
After five years of unprecendented obstruction, finally Harry Reid showed some and killed the 60 vote rule for executive appointments and judicial nominations.
 
Bout time.
 
Astounding.

Good thing Dems have a permanent lock on the Senate.
 
Not sure how I feel about this. As long as it doesn't extend to legislation or the SCOTUS, I think I'm ok with it. I would not want a future Democratic minority putting up the kind of obstruction on agency appointments by a Republican president that the Republicans have shown during this administration.
 
if the pubs acted like any semblance of a responsible minority, this wouldn't be necessary. that's what's so frustrating.
 
beatrix said:
Astounding.

Good thing Dems have a permanent lock on the Senate.
Click to expand...

The GOP blocked EVERY appointment to the DC Court. That's never happened before. They got what they deserved.

The Dems cut them a break in not including other votes and holds.
 
I really don't have a problem with this. And I don't expect to have a problem when there is a 'pub President who wants to fulfill his/her cabinet and judiciary posts. If American elects an idiot or a right-wing nut-job, then we have to deal with that.
 
Deacon923 said:
Not sure how I feel about this. As long as it doesn't extend to legislation or the SCOTUS, I think I'm ok with it. I would not want a future Democratic minority putting up the kind of obstruction on agency appointments by a Republican president that the Republicans have shown during this administration.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
225 years down the drain. Both parties have long threatened this. Reid was whirling on about the importance of filibusters in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot. Don't think this is a wise move at all. It positions us for judges with a much wider range of viewpoints than we'd otherwise get. If you think things are screwy now just wait until every judge is either Scalia or or his leftist counterpart. And once you really fuck up the judiciary branch then you are really screwed.
 
DeacMan said:
225 years down the drain. Both parties have long threatened this. Reid was whirling on about the importance of filibusters in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot. Don't think this is a wise move at all. It positions us for judges with a much wider range of viewpoints than we'd otherwise get. If you think things are screwy now just wait until every judge is either Scalia or or his leftist counterpart. And once you really fuck up the judiciary branch then you are really screwed.
Click to expand...

The bold would be a good start given how few nominations have been confirmed in the last 5 years.
 
DeacMan said:
225 years down the drain. Both parties have long threatened this. Reid was whirling on about the importance of filibusters in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot. Don't think this is a wise move at all. It positions us for judges with a much wider range of viewpoints than we'd otherwise get. If you think things are screwy now just wait until every judge is either Scalia or or his leftist counterpart. And once you really fuck up the judiciary branch then you are really screwed.
Click to expand...

It has never been this bad and the GOP proved it wasn't interested in doing anything other than obstructing today. Each judge who was up for the DC Court was eminently qualified.

You can't compare an occasional use to filibustering to doing so to nearly every appointment as a planned methodology.

There is another huge difference. In 2005 it was about the individual judges. For the past five years, it's had nothing to do with the judges. It's about destroying Obama.
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
225 years down the drain.
Click to expand...

LOL.

The first filibuster was threatened in 1837. It's not in the Constitution. The rules on filibusters have been changed many times. And it was very, very rare until recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

480px-Cloture_Voting%2C_United_States_Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.svg.png
 
DeacMan said:
225 years down the drain. Both parties have long threatened this. Reid was whirling on about the importance of filibusters in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot. Don't think this is a wise move at all. It positions us for judges with a much wider range of viewpoints than we'd otherwise get. If you think things are screwy now just wait until every judge is either Scalia or or his leftist counterpart. And once you really fuck up the judiciary branch then you are really screwed.
Click to expand...

It positions us for getting things accomplished instead of treading water. If those things are wrong at least we'll know and can start fixing them.
 
923, don't bother DeacMan with historical facts that disprove his baseless rant. I've posted either that graph or an identical one multiple times.
 
RJKarl said:
923, don't bother DeacMan with historical facts that disprove his baseless rant. I've posted either that graph or an identical one multiple times.
Click to expand...

No you haven't.
 
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/964...rats-obama-opposed-stripping-filibuster-2005/

Oh what a difference a decade makes...

Smash-cut to 2005:

Sen. Barack Obama [now President]: …”hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a, you know, change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever… Uhh, and, what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton: “So this president (George W. Bush) has come to the majority here in the Senate, and basically said, ‘change the rules.’ Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there weren’t that many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted, and said, Mr. President, we’re with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far. We can’t go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. ” {Note: Mrs. Clinton is no longer in the Senate.]

Sen. Chuck Schumer: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a Constitutional crisis. The checks and balances, which have been at the core of this Republic [finally, a Democrat who understands basic political philosophy - ed.], are about to be evaporated, by the nuclear option. The checks and balances say that if you get 51% of the vote, you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing, almost a temper tantrum…”



Sen. Joseph Biden [now, Vice President]: “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab.”
 
Why doesn't the admin just drone strike the 40th vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top