• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harry Reid prepares Senate to go ‘nuclear,’ end nomination filibusters

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,303
Reaction score
28,274
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Harry Reid prepares Senate to go 'nuclear,' end nomination filibusters - Washington Times

Senate Democrats laid the groundwork Thursday to trigger the “nuclear option” against minority filibusters, setting up a dramatic Tuesday showdown in which Republicans either will have to accept seven of President Obama’s controversial appointments or watch as Democrats change the rules and end filibusters of executive branch nominees.

The move would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the White House and the Senate and would give the president more latitude to put his team into place. But it also would aggravate a contentious atmosphere in the Senate and dim prospects for bipartisan agreements this year, with spending, debt and immigration fights still simmering.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said at the beginning of the year that he would not use the option.

He changed his mind Thursday after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, broke his side of an agreement by delaying confirmation of some of the president’s nominees.

“A deal is a deal, a contract is a contract, an arrangement is an arrangement, a bargain is a bargain, as long as each party to such an agreement holds up his end of the bargain,” Mr. Reid said in a morning floor speech.

Republicans warned that they could retaliate easily if they reclaim the majority by ending other filibusters, which would let them push through their own priorities without fear of minority obstruction.

Democrats better get rid of Reid, the man is an unhinged gang weasel. If the Reps regain the Senate, there will be hell to pay.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,257
Reaction score
33,773
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If this is really a problem (and I am willing to accept the possibility that it is), then it seems the best change is not to get rid of the fillibuster - but to enforce it. If a candidate is so noxious that he or she should be fillibustered, then let the Senators take the floor.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,952
Reaction score
28,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He wants to undo measures that were put in place for fairness to the American People? Wow.....

How does denying the majority will of the people equate to fairness for the people?

Is this measure only going to change the vote procedure for nominees or for all legislation?
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How does denying the majority will of the people equate to fairness for the people?

Is this measure only going to change the vote procedure for nominees or for all legislation?

Majority is not the same as majority will of the people.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,952
Reaction score
28,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Majority is not the same as majority will of the people.

Senators are duly elected representatives of the people. As such, they generally reflect the will of the people. Why should not a majority of them not be able to enact legislation or confirm appointments?
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Senators are duly elected representatives of the people. As such, they generally reflect the will of the people. Why should not a majority of them not be able to enact legislation or confirm appointments?

Because there are safeguards to protect other areas of the country and have their voices heard too. By the way does legislation not require 60 votes in the Senate?
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Senators are duly elected representatives of the people. As such, they generally reflect the will of the people. Why should not a majority of them not be able to enact legislation or confirm appointments?

Heya HM. :2wave: That's not necessarily true with Senators. I would say moreso with Congressmen and women.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,952
Reaction score
28,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because there are safeguards to protect other areas of the country and have their voices heard too. By the way does legislation not require 60 votes in the Senate?

Why can't their voices be heard through Senators who agree with them in normal floor speeches?

Where did I say that legislation requires 60 votes?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,316
Reaction score
34,662
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because there are safeguards to protect other areas of the country and have their voices heard too. By the way does legislation not require 60 votes in the Senate?

The constitution says 51 votes. The filibuster makes it effectively 60.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,952
Reaction score
28,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Heya HM. :2wave: That's not necessarily true with Senators. I would say moreso with Congressmen and women.

Senators come from the entire state of all the people in that state. Representatives usually come from highly gerrymandered districts that are not always an accurate representation of the people of that state.

I guess this is something that can be argued both ways all day long without resolution.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In a representative democracy... it kindof is.

That assumes that on every issue every representative always votes with the majority of their district. We know good and well that is not alwasy the case.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Senators come from the entire state of all the people in that state. Representatives usually come from highly gerrymandered districts that are not always an accurate representation of the people of that state.

I guess this is something that can be argued both ways all day long without resolution.

Well.....truthfully. I just look at what the Senators Vote for. Which many times is against what their own constitutients want. Prime example would be Johnny Quest McCain. Who probably does moreso than any other Senator.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,952
Reaction score
28,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well.....truthfully. I just look at what the Senators Vote for. Which many times is against what their own constitutients want. Prime example would be Johnny Quest McCain. Who probably does moreso than any other Senator.

And how many times have the good people of his state elected him to office?
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
And how many times have the good people of his state elected him to office?

How many times did they even have anyone else to run up against him? Someone that did represent all of Arizona. How many times did the Repubs support him and tank any other Repub that refused to step back and not challenge him.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,089
Reaction score
4,382
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,952
Reaction score
28,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How many times did they even have anyone else to run up against him? Someone that did represent all of Arizona. How many times did the Repubs support him and tank any other Repub that refused to step back and not challenge him.

Every time McCain ran there was opportunity both within his own party and any opposition party to defeat him. The people elected McCain time after time after time after time.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Every time McCain ran there was opportunity both within his own party and any opposition party to defeat him. The people elected McCain time after time after time after time.

Yeah, and that still doesn't mean he was representing his constituients all the time either.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,952
Reaction score
28,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, and that still doesn't mean he was representing his constituients all the time either.

I can accept that a politician can get elected and do a poor job at representing the people. Things like that can happen. But when a very high profile person like McCain gets elected time after time after time over a very long and very public career - 30 years to be exact - the idea that he is not representing his constituents is a bit hard to accept.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,466
Reaction score
4,110
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
All Sen. Reid appears to be saying is if Senate Republicans are going to reneg on an agreement on their part to stop stonewalling confirmation of presidential appointments, he will end filerbustering in the Senate and go with a simple majority vote. Frankly, I think this is long overdue not due to political ideology but because it just makes sense.If a Senator disagrees with a matter, he should voice his displeasure durning open debate. Senators shouldn't be allowed to just ramble on non-stop about anything the majority of which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand or the bill as proposed. The filerbuster is nothing more than a tool used by disgruntled blowhards who just want to stall an issue or kill a vote. Both sides have done it. It's beyond time to end this obstructionist practice
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,466
Reaction score
4,110
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Senators come from the entire state of all the people in that state. Representatives usually come from highly gerrymandered districts that are not always an accurate representation of the people of that state.

I guess this is something that can be argued both ways all day long without resolution.

You it more right than wrong. Duly elected Senators do represent a vasy majority of a given state whereas Congressmen primarily represent their voti g districts.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,466
Reaction score
4,110
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How many times did they even have anyone else to run up against him? Someone that did represent all of Arizona. How many times did the Repubs support him and tank any other Repub that refused to step back and not challenge him.

If we are to go by your logic (which is a fair argument mind you) then one must assume that the only reason Sen. MCconnel still ranks supreme in KY is because his campaigns ha e been successful at running off every primary candidate who has tried to run against him. Thus, allowing hi m to run for re-election unopposed. But I guess it's as they say, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,316
Reaction score
34,662
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That assumes that on every issue every representative always votes with the majority of their district. We know good and well that is not alwasy the case.

It doesn't really assume that, no. If we were going to only do anything based on a 50%+ vote in a district, we'd be a direct democracy instead of a representative democracy. You vote for a person to use their judgment about how to vote in Congress.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
If we are to go by your logic (which is a fair argument mind you) then one must assume that the only reason Sen. MCconnel still ranks supreme in KY is because his campaigns ha e been successful at running off every primary candidate who has tried to run against him. Thus, allowing hi m to run for re-election unopposed. But I guess it's as they say, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."

Well I could look at Illinois.....like Durbin and over the Gun issue. He keeps getting relected. Mainly thru Chicago and its suburbs. Even though most in the State and even the City want to be able to carry a firearm. Yet everytime he votes lock, stock and barrel with the Democrats and that Outfit in Chicago.

Just how is doing what the people want when he argues against it even nationally? How is representing his people when he stands with the minority and even against the Constitutional Right to bear arms?
 
Top Bottom