nonniey

Then why are you all acting like the filibuster is not dead? It certainly seems like none of you know what de facto death means? Frankly for those who understand this you all look clueless.

What?? I never claimed it was de jure dead - I claimed it was dead and that the Dems killed it. Larry, you and others obviously could not grasp or it seems in Larry's case understand what I was saying.

Larry I take it you never took a political science class in college. I thought you were just playing games but this response screams out that you actually in fact don't know the meaning of de-facto and de-jure.

As I've pointed out repeatedly that was only because it was the only filibuster that was relevant (Reid himself admitted such). You know - I thought on a political board most would know what De Facto and De Jure means you guys really proved me wrong about that. When Reid did that the filibuster was in de facto dead. (De Facto - adj - denoting someone or something that is such in fact).

Like I said in another post there some that don't comprehend the implications of Reid's and the democrats action to go "nuclear" in 2013 despite fairly clear explanations from by me, journalists, other posters on this this board. Chait's first paragraph- " Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told veteran New York Times reporter Carl Hulse that, if his party wins back the majority, it might completely eliminate the filibuster. This threat has been received as a revelatory and potentially explosive new development. The reality is that the filibuster is already dead de facto, and only political circumstance will dictate when the Senate formally kills it de jure". Larry here is an analogy - you Steve and others are arguing someone is not dead even though his head is laying ten feet from the body because the coroner hasn't formally signed the death certificate.

Agree C is fallacy as it is very clear and most people on both the left and right who understand what happened (this thread clearly shows there are some that don't) acknowledge that it was the Democrats that killed the filibuster.

It is not speculation Reid said so himself.

No I don't think they have any interest in preserving it. The Democrats already stated they were going to get rid of it when they regained control of the Senate. So the Dems were already planning on railroading it without obstacle once they had all three branches. What the Dems didn't count on was what happened last week. Like I said it would be completely stupid for the Republicans to retain the filibuster with one exception (If they could get them Dems to agree with them to put the filibuster in the Constitution - otherwise they'd be cutting their own throats).

For gosh sake please read Chaits article that I posted earlier in this thread. It clearly explains why it is dead. There was no need for the Democrats to remove the filibuster on legislation because they did not control the House - No legislation that Republicans opposed could be approved anyway so that filibuster was irrelevant and since there were no Supreme Court vacancies there was no reason to remove that one either (If at the time the Dems had controlled the House as well - all three filibusters would have been officially killed - Reid essentially admitted that himself) .

It would be absolutely stupid for the GOP not to kill the filibuster at the first sign of the Dems trying to use it. Think about it. Why would the Republicans allow the Democrats to block their appointments and legislation using a filibuster when the same Democrats have demonstrated and then further even stated that they are not going to allow Republicans to use any filibusters to block appointments or legislation in the future?

Oh but that is a different argument. Not saying the Republicans were reasonable or unreasonable but before Reid nuked the filibuster Sen Collins made a last ditch offer to save it. Reid decided to use the nuke and now the Filibuster is dead.

Already have and explained it for years. Just read Chait's article that I posted above he explains it as well.

How are they going to pay a price for doing that? You just don't understand the term de facto and de jure do you? Reid killed the filibuster - it is as simple as that and despite your and Larry's denial that is what is perceived (and true) by the those who understand politics.

There is nothing to believe the Dems essentially told them they were going end it in the future (of course this happened when they were sure they'd be the ones in charge of the Senate)

I disagree that both are culpable when it comes to ending the filibuster. This one is on Reid and his Senate colleagues. .

Maybe they would have and can't argue a hypothetical. But you can't convict the Republicans for what they might have done. The Dems however........

Yes he essentially did. Read that damn Chait article, who I remind you is a big Democrat. When Reid launched the nuclear option he de facto killed all filibusters (I've been saying that for years). He essentially admitted he'd kill the other two de jure once they became relevant.

I was about to say it is even worse than you think (for the Democrats) as it is highly likely the Republicans will retain control of the Senate through 2020 but then I remembered I was even more certain that the Dems would have the Presidency (Nothing is certain). Not even then. Even if 100% of congress and the President passed it - it would still have to be ratified by the States - most of which the bill would screw over if ratified. The EC is never going away.

Not just anyone McConnel himself warned him on this. Reid just assumed it would be his party that would be in power to finish off the filibuster (He was still assuming this earlier this fall and essentially admitted his party would kill the Supreme Court filibuster when they got control of the Senate).

Larry I'll just steal a handy little saying the left really likes to overuse. But this time it fits - You (and Steve) are on the wrong side of history in this particular argument.

Read Chaits write up. The filibuster was dead as soon as Reid executed the nuclear option in 2013. Just silly denying it. I argued this in 2013 - heck just this past September it was Reid himself who confirmed what I was pointing out.

They killed the only filibuster that was affecting them while keeping the two that were irrelevant. Reid let out they'd kill the other filibusters as soon as they become relevant. Unfortunately for the Democrats it was the Republicans that took all three branches so instead it will be them that nominally eliminates the final two. There was article in Slate yesterday now bemoaning Reid's action in 2013 basically admitting it was a mistake. He was told by McConnel when he did it that it was short sighted and he may very well regret it sooner that he thought. McConnell was right.

See my response to Larry. Yes they did kill it and Jonathan Chait laid out in nymagazine (Sep 2016) why it is dead and has been dead since 2013.

Larry Read this article by Johnathan Chait. It echoes exactly what I've told you for years and since it comes from a strong democrat writer maybe then you'll be able to comprehend that Reid really did kill the filibuster. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-filibuster-is-already-gone.html Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told veteran New York Times reporter Carl Hulse that, if his party wins back the majority, it might completely eliminate the filibuster. This threat has been received as a revelatory and potentially explosive new development. The reality is that the filibuster is already dead de facto, and only political circumstance will dictate when the Senate formally kills it de jure........ ...........Now, Reid’s rule change was narrowly tailored to address only Executive branch appointments and judicial nominees for federal courts other than the Supreme Court. Why did he eliminate the filibuster for those positions only? ................. those positions were the only places where the Republicans had a veto point over the Democrats’ agenda. In 2013–14, Democrats had the presidency but not the House. They could appoint judges and administrators to the Executive branch. Because Republicans held the House, they could not pass major legislation. And they could not confirm Supreme Court appointments because there were no vacancies during that period. Reid changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster in the only places where the filibuster stood in the way of his party getting things done. ..... ....... What happens to the filibuster will be dictated by the results of November’s election. If Republicans keep the House but Democrats gain the Senate and the White House, Democrats will eliminate the judicial filibuster for Supreme Court seats. The legislation filibuster will stay in place because it will be irrelevant — any deal Democrats could make that could pass a Republican-controlled House could also get 60 Senate votes anyway. If Democrats gain control of the House and Senate along with the White House, Republicans will use the filibuster to block everything they do until Democrats eliminate the filibuster for all legislation and judicial nominations. If Republicans win the presidency and keep control of the Senate, they will eliminate the filibuster in order to enact their agenda.

Where have you been? Reid killed the filibuster in 2013. Slate just had an article yesterday bemoaning that as a mistake they wish they could take back. At the time it was pointed out by the Republicans as very short sighted on the Dems part.