Reid Nukes Senate

[Gucumatz]

This is one of those genie out of the bottle ideas. Most people agree its actually a pretty good thing to have when used reasonably, but at the same time why would anyone actively agree to cut their own power by re-imposing it? It won't be changed back. I say both Republicans and Democrats when not in power both agree that the rule was a safeguard, but that's the key operator here: "Not in Power". This has been a safeguard against terrible Republican nominees in the past - why would they actively choose to re-instate the rule and have their terrible nominees shot down then?

 

[Cutlass]

It's the GOP's fault that the Democrats decided to make Washington worse than it was?

1, they didn't make anything worse. 2, when the other side refuses to compromise about anything, then yes they have forced the outcome.

You sound like an abusive husband blaming the wife for making him hit her.

Exactly the opposite. What the Democrats did was like an abused wife finally shooting her abuser.

 

[Kyriakos]

1, they didn't make anything worse. 2, when the other side refuses to compromise about anything, then yes they have forced the outcome.

Unless Putin intervenes. Then USA#1Democracy/FREEDOM steps aside a bit

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So the Republicans have ground the government to a halt over the past 5 years, using every trick they can to keep it from doing even the bare minimum to function. On top of shut-downs and general obstructionism when it comes to passing needed legislation (immigration reform, tax reform, etc), they have also tried to stop Obama from appointing people to run/staff agencies that he's legally required to appoint. It's not just judges we're talking about, they've stymmied a great number of executive appointments that are necessary to run the government. Why? BECAUSE OBAMA!

So now the Democrats have used the parliamentary process to change parliamentary procedures, and they're the ones being called Nazis? Right, we're on that slippery-slope to holocaust for sure now.


And to the hard-right, like I've said before, you applaud the obstructionism like it's the best thing ever for the country. Well now, remember that when your side has power and tries to pass abortion restrictions or something the dems don't like. Good luck with that, you'll reap what you've sown. Or not, because we all know that if the Republicans are back in power of the presidency and/or senate, they won't be reinstating the previous rules.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hobbsy, for the love of all that is good, don't pick a clowncolor and enlist in the clownwar.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

But yeah, I've been following this thread since yesterday and I've resisted the urge to post until now as it seemed completely pointless. But my PPD needs a boost so there ya go.

 

[bhsup]

I just cannot help thinking of Babylon 5 here. Kosh is asked how it will end, and he replies, "in fire."

 

[peter grimes]

Seriously, I hate these treacle appeals to tradition and custom - just because a rule is traditional doesn't mean it's *useful*.

 

[BvBPL]

"some say in ice,"

 

[Kyriakos]

Democracy is pretty old by now too..

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Seriously, I hate these treacle appeals to tradition and custom - just because a rule is traditional doesn't mean it's *useful*.

And more importantly, it's tradtional because of sloppy writing of the original rules, ie, an accident.

And just so everyone knows where i stand, this kind of obstructionism was stupid when the dems did/do it. The difference here is the scale of it as the republicans have practiced it but either way, it's stupid.

 

[Farm Boy]

Fair enough.

 

[peter grimes]

Since this rule change only affects executive nominations (-Supreme Court), I wonder which of GwB's nominees would have gone through?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm sure the desire for vengeance will get in the way.

It looks like you are seeing through the empty rhetoric of those protesting this on principle.

I'm sure you'll be as critical when that time comes around.

 

[Camikaze]

Looking at whether the rule has been politically convenient for the Democrats at a particular time in the past, or for the Republicans more recently, seems to be missing the point. Of course Democrats would support a rule in a situation in which it enables them to get what they want easier, and of course Republicans don't like a rule, which they're using to get closer to what they want, being taken away now. But none of that says anything about whether the rule is good or not.

 

[Antilogic]

But wait, in 2005 were the Democrats doing exactly what THEIR constituents wanted? I'm hoping you have a reasonable response, so I don't have to go spend time digging up Reid's/Schumer's et al quotes from eight years ago...

As JR pointed out earlier:

In 2005, there was compromise on judicial nominees.

There have actually been what, 3 deals between McConnell and Reid now? There was one back in 2009, there was one in 2011, there was the one around the Chuck Hagel nomination (ground-breaking because it was cabinent-level), and McConnell had consistently reneged on the every one. Now we have the failure to reach a deal last week. What on Earth did he think would happen?

Is that "holdup" a filibuster or being rejected on an up-or-down vote? The Congress is perfectly able to vote down any nominee they so choose and no changes to filibuster rules will ever alter that. Robert Bork, the famous first example trotted out because Biden led the opposition, was actually voted down and not filibustered.

Additional question, how many vacancies were there at the start of Bush's second term in office as compared to Obama's second term? The absolute number means squat if there were not any vacancies to fill.

This is one of those genie out of the bottle ideas. Most people agree its actually a pretty good thing to have when used reasonably, but at the same time why would anyone actively agree to cut their own power by re-imposing it? It won't be changed back. I say both Republicans and Democrats when not in power both agree that the rule was a safeguard, but that's the key operator here: "Not in Power". This has been a safeguard against terrible Republican nominees in the past - why would they actively choose to re-instate the rule and have their terrible nominees shot down then?

Yeah, this.

I just cannot help thinking of Babylon 5 here. Kosh is asked how it will end, and he replies, "in fire."

Our country survived without filibustering executive nominees until the Carter administration (it's a recent thing, apparently), so we'll probably survive this as well.

And more importantly, it's tradtional because of sloppy writing of the original rules, ie, an accident.

And just so everyone knows where i stand, this kind of obstructionism was stupid when the dems did/do it. The difference here is the scale of it as the republicans have practiced it but either way, it's stupid.

THANKS AARON BURR!

 

[DinoDoc]

It looks like you are seeing through the empty rhetoric of those protesting this on principle.

Only the extremists win—and in the end, mostly the Republicans.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It looks as if looks can be deceiving.

Oh well, expectations were low anyway.

 

[metatron]

I'm pretty sure they made the same arguments in 1933 Germany.

Burn the Reichstag, nuke the Senate, what's the difference?

You are aware that this analogy very much backfires in the most catastrophic fashion?

Rule of thumb: Never make a Nazi comparison in support of a Republican political point.
It never works.

 

[JollyRoger]

Anyway, I believe Reid's manuever is more properly called the Constitutional Option, or at least that is what righties called it back in the day.