Democrats Poised to Limit Filibusters, Angering G.O.P. (1 Viewer)

[Cardinal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/u...n-senate-over-filibusters-change.html?hp&_r=0

WASHINGTON — A confrontation in the Senate between Republicans and Democrats over the confirmation of President Obama’s cabinet nominees edged closer on Thursday toward a showdown over changing the rules on filibusters.

While the constant filibustering is certainly not a positive thing, the danger as everybody well knows is when the power shifts to the other party.

Republicans and Democrats have been searching for a way to avert the rule change, which is so controversial that it is nicknamed “the nuclear option.” Any altering of the long-held Senate custom of the filibuster is a rare and, some argue, perilous as one year’s majority party could be the next year’s minority. Senators in both parties also say they fear it could irrevocably change the nature of the Senate.

One could certainly make the argument that making it your policy to filibuster everything the other side proposes as a means of undermining their president has "irrevocably changed the nature of the Senate." The Republicans have wielded the filibuster recklessly, and if the Democrats remove or even just weaken the power of the filibuster the party in charge will be able to act even more recklessly. But temperance has not been a powerful rallying cry in the Republican party for some time now and they are not likely to relax their use of the filibuster soon.

 

[Fisher]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I am no fan of the democrats in the Senate, but what people call the "nuclear option" others call the "Constitutional option". Independent of who employs it, I think the 60 votes to pass rule violates the Constitution which is explicit as to when a supermajority is required.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Actually, I believe that the existence of the filibuster is a positive thing, especially when I see what's happening in North Carolina after the Republicans took over both the executive and the legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. But to use it as a tool to undermine the opposing party instead of blocking draconian bills is why we've come to this point.

The "nuclear option" is not new -- it's been proposed from time to time since Clinton at least. But I think now that somebody is either going to blink or what's happening in North Carolina will be reenacted on a Federal level in the future.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I think what should happen is that the filibuster needs to go back to being an actual filibuster. That whole thing about standing up before congress and actually "running out the clock" by speaking on the subject? Yeah, that went away ages ago. Just need one guy sitting down in an air-conditioned room to say "I object" when a call for a vote comes up.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The "nuclear option" is not new -- it's been proposed from time to time since Clinton at least.

Since about 1975, according to wiki! Although the phrasing "nuclear option" is more recent.

 

[Anagram]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I think what should happen is that the filibuster needs to go back to being an actual filibuster. That whole thing about standing up before congress and actually "running out the clock" by speaking on the subject? Yeah, that went away ages ago. Just need one guy sitting down in an air-conditioned room to say "I object" when a call for a vote comes up.

That might be the best option. I wouldn't want it to go away permanently, there are good reasons for it. But the way it is right now can be easily abused by the minority party. That'd be a good compromise, I think.

 

[fmw]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

While the constant filibustering is certainly not a positive thing,

It is a wonderful thing. It is one of the few things available to slow down the congress.

 

[Drake McHugh]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

If Reid goes through with it,and I am the Republican leader,I tell my senators to go home for the rest of the year.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I am no fan of the democrats in the Senate, but what people call the "nuclear option" others call the "Constitutional option". Independent of who employs it, I think the 60 votes to pass rule violates the Constitution which is explicit as to when a supermajority is required.

Exactly. Its a bogus rule. People vote for the majority to lead. And I don't mean dominate but to put forth the policies they ran on. People voted for that. If the people were wrong and those policies are enacted and fail... that's what the hell the next election is for. When I watch the abuse of the filibuster I can't help but think that here we are... electing officials and they say "yeah, we know that you put us in charge, but we are going to kind of ignore you and make our own little rules. Now go play children. Ignore us."

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Wasn't Wendy Davis raised up as a hero for using the filibuster to stop Republicans from making abortions safer in Texas?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Wasn't Wendy Davis raised up as a hero for using the filibuster to stop Republicans from making abortions safer in Texas?

she used the filibuster that we come to recognize from "mr smith goes to washington"

the kind of filibusters we oppose are the so called silent filibuster.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

This would be the Greek Tragedy "catastrophe" where the Democrats, feeling invincible, become the architects of their own undoing.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Wasn't Wendy Davis raised up as a hero for using the filibuster to stop Republicans from making abortions safer in Texas?

The filibuster, in principle, is not the problem. The problem is wielding it solely as a tool for undermining the president, as is being done now.

McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a ‘one-term president’? - The Washington Post

 

[Deuce]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Wasn't Wendy Davis raised up as a hero for using the filibuster to stop Republicans from making abortions safer in Texas?

She did a real filibuster. The difficult kind you'd only use in an extreme case.
For the past couple decades, the fake filibuster has been used to hamstring basic government functions for partisan gain.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I am no fan of the democrats in the Senate, but what people call the "nuclear option" others call the "Constitutional option". Independent of who employs it, I think the 60 votes to pass rule violates the Constitution which is explicit as to when a supermajority is required.

Where does the constitution mention Senate voting margins?

 

[Drake McHugh]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Wasn't Wendy Davis raised up as a hero for using the filibuster to stop Republicans from making abortions safer in Texas?

Yeah,but that was different.

 

[jamesrage]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/u...n-senate-over-filibusters-change.html?hp&_r=0



While the constant filibustering is certainly not a positive thing, the danger as everybody well knows is when the power shifts to the other party.



One could certainly make the argument that making it your policy to filibuster everything the other side proposes as a means of undermining their president has "irrevocably changed the nature of the Senate." The Republicans have wielded the filibuster recklessly, and if the Democrats remove or even just weaken the power of the filibuster the party in charge will be able to act even more recklessly. But temperance has not been a powerful rallying cry in the Republican party for some time now and they are not likely to relax their use of the filibuster soon.

Democrats would be very foolish to limit the filibusters.It might be one of those things the side in the majority hates but it is one of those things the side in the minority loves.Obama will not be president forever, nor will there be a democrat president forever.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The filibuster, in principle, is not the problem. The problem is wielding it solely as a tool for undermining the president, as is being done now.

Except that anything that undermines Obama is good for the country.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

fillibusters were used in the past only under extraordinary circumstances.

now it seems the fillibuster is used to oppose Everything and anything

 

[Cardinal]

Democrats would be very foolish to limit the filibusters.It might be one of those things the side in the majority hates but it is one of those things the side in the minority loves.Obama will not be president forever, nor will there be a democrat president forever.

Yes, I believe this is why it's popularly referred to as the "nuclear" option.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Except that anything that undermines Obama is good for the country.

Even if what Obama does is good for the country?

 

[wbcoleman]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Exactly. Its a bogus rule. People vote for the majority to lead. And I don't mean dominate but to put forth the policies they ran on. People voted for that. If the people were wrong and those policies are enacted and fail... that's what the hell the next election is for. When I watch the abuse of the filibuster I can't help but think that here we are... electing officials and they say "yeah, we know that you put us in charge, but we are going to kind of ignore you and make our own little rules. Now go play children. Ignore us."

Back in 2005 Harry Reid felt otherwise. I wonder why.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Back in 2005 Harry Reid felt otherwise. I wonder why.

you mean that time bush picked ideologically extreme candidates for justices, namely Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and janice rogers brown.

and besides ever since mcconnel became minority leader he has been forcing ried to invoke more and more cloture motions.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >

and no president prior to Obama has faced such bitter and ironclad opposition to his cabinet nominees or judical nominees.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Except that anything that undermines Obama is good for the country.

It is this kind of ridiculous belief that got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[wbcoleman]

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

you mean that time bush picked ideologically extreme candidates for justices, namely Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and janice rogers brown.

and besides ever since mcconnel became minority leader he has been forcing ried to invoke more and more cloture motions.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >

and no president prior to Obama has faced such bitter and ironclad opposition to his cabinet nominees or judical nominees.

Yep, this time it's different. And just wat until McConnel and Reid change places!