Reid Nukes Senate

[Antilogic]

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.

Wasn't the term "nuclear option" coined by Trent Lott, of all people?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Ahahahahahahahaha...*breath*...hahahahahahahaha!!!! Man, that didn't take them long! See spoiler for content from my inbox.

Spoiler :

UPDATE!

Spoiler :

I had no intention of donating, but I clicked on the link for giggles and... made me laugh again!

For the sake of our children!


Is Todd Akin willing to run again?

 

[Darkflight]

Link to video.

 

[illram]

Filibustering anything and everything doesn't work. When a rule becomes an impediment to the purpose, change the rule. If it comes back to bite Dems, so be it. If it's a better way to do things it's a better way to do things.

Next on my agenda: eliminating gerrymandering of Congressional districts and removing the silent filibuster from normal legislation.

 

[Tahuti]

Next on my agenda: eliminating gerrymandering of Congressional districts

The only way Congress would be enticed to do something against Gerrymandering would be a significant discrepency between state and congressional votes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only there is frequently a "significant disparity" between popular opinion and what the Republicans continue to do. They have learned to use the system to remain in power despite not having a mandate to justify their acts. Trying to rationalize and defend it is an exercise in partisan politics, much like it is with disenfranchisement or any of their other unethical and morally repugnant activities.

 

[peter grimes]

@ illram - do you mean the Silent Hold?

Yeah, I've never understood the utility of that one.

 

[bhsup]

What we need to do is to repeal the 17th Amendment. The country has been going down the crapper since it was passed. Still the greatest country in the world, though, which shows just how incredibly mega-awesome it was to begin with!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think a better solution would be to modify the 2nd amendment such that you can either own firearms or vote, but not both. That would fix an awful lot of problems in one go.

 

[KMRblue1027]

What we need to do is to repeal the 17th Amendment. The country has been going down the crapper since it was passed. Still the greatest country in the world, though, which shows just how incredibly mega-awesome it was to begin with!

So 1950-1970 didn't exist?

 

[JollyRoger]

What we need to do is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

We won a couple of World Wars and the DOW has gone from under 100 to over 16,000 since then.

 

[bhsup]

So 1950-1970 didn't exist?

Just imagine how awesome they would have been in the 17th hadn't happened.

We won a couple of World Wars and the DOW has gone from under 100 to over 16,000 since then.

DOW would probably be around 30K and we'd be straddling the world like a colossus, as the Civ 2 military advisor would say.

 

[JollyRoger]

DOW would probably be around 30K and we'd be straddling the world like a colossus, as the Civ 2 military advisor would say.

I guess we are settling for attempting to straddle the world Roman Video style.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What we need to do is to repeal the 17th Amendment. The country has been going down the crapper since it was passed.

I guess we should also make them "lords" while we are at it.

Appointing legislators has to be the worst scheme ever concocted by power-hungry aristocrats who wanted to maintain the status quo no matter what atrocities they might commit while trying to maintain a semblance of a representative government.

 

[JollyRoger]

The good thing about the 17th being repealed is that we would not see the likes of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul in the Senate.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It only fixes the issue of the state legislators being too partial and incompetent to not appoint Senators suffering from the same problems. Unfortunately, there is no such method to resolve the matter of a sufficient number of voters in any particular state having the same issues other than a far better educational system.

 

[PaganJulian]

You have the Presidency, the House and the Senate each elected using different methods and at different times. As I understand it, a party just has to be in control of one of these institutions to stop any legislation they do not like. On top of that you have the judiciary striking down laws contrary to their reading of the constitution. Isn't the system already loaded down with enough 'checks and balances' without the need for this kind of fillibuster?

 

[Souron]

'Bout time. This should have been done long ago.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Mise had it right a couple of pages ago: As soon as the Republicans retake the senate, they can be expected to reverse the rules change. Unless they are hypocrites....

I'm glad to see the rule gone regardless of who controls the senate.

 

[Kyriakos]

Mise had it right a couple of pages ago: As soon as the Republicans retake the senate, they can be expected to reverse the rules change. Unless they are hypocrites....

I'm glad to see the rule gone regardless of who controls the senate.

This sort of reversal never happens (think of Obama and Guantanamo, or any other police-state law of the previous administration). In fact you can be sure that both main parties antagonise so as to get even more power in the future, as was secured now. It seems to be a facade, in which the people are right to accuse them of eroding democracy, but most of the actual politicians using the same line are in fact just pretending.

So both of the parties, again, are crap (and like i said this is not solely a US phenomenon). It is quite dangerous, though.