U.S. Congress Part 116

[Larry]

Deleted post.  Too depressing.  

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Larry

[nonniey]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Sounds like you're a little defensive about your own understanding of logical fallacies.  Here let me spell out the false equivalency in your claim:

A - Republicans won't take responsibility if they end the filibuster.

B - Democrats won't take responsibility if the Republicans end the filibuster.

C - Therefore both sides are equal in their refusal to take responsibility.

A is not an equivalent claim to B.  C is a fallacy.

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.

Edited November 17, 2016 by nonniey

[bearrock]

Dems shoulder the responsibility for the decision to end the institution of filibuster.  Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate.  Filibuster may have been justifiable in an era where is was judiciously used, but when 41 senators can grind the country to a halt on every single legislation, even the most menial executive appointment, and leave the judiciary hanging with crushing case load with increasing unfilled vacancies, I would say filibuster is doing more harm than good.  If it means the occasional Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and unfettered implementation of partisan agenda upon election, so be it.  Winners of election should be able implememt their vision for the country, instead of trying to convince the populus that nothing got done because the other side took the ball and went home.  This turn it will be the republicans.  Depending on how the Trump administration performs, it may be the Dems' turn soon enough.

[Larry]

5 hours ago, nonniey said:

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.

 

 

Reid did not nuke the filibuster.  The filibuster is not dead (yet).  

The fact that you are trying to justify the Republicans nuking it, proves that you know this fact.  

[Fergasun]

The filibuster is not effin' dead for legislation!  When did the Dems kill it? 

Reid could have done it in 2009 after Brown came in for Kennedy - did he? 

"Reid said, Reid said"... means nothing.

Both parties should realize political power ebbs and flows...there is a difference to "obstruct so we can gain politically" and "obstruct because of some fundamental issue."

No Senator in their right mind would end the filibuster (for legislation), because it would destroy the Senate.  Even the GOP won't come out and say it -- do they want to steamroll through Trump and House  crazy policies?  

That would transform the Senate to the lesser of the House.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

Any chance of ever having a political debate on this forum again that doesn't just devolve into both sides pointing fingers at each other?

[Larry]

5 hours ago, btfoom said:

By using it for his purposes, he in fact killed it.  No reason the GOP can't use it for what they wish - specifically SC appointments.

 

By not in fact killing it, he did not in fact kill it.  

The filibuster still exists in the US Senate.  

If it did not, then it would be impossible for the Republicans to get rid of it   (It would already be gone.)

And you would not be trying to justify them doing it.  

5 hours ago, nonniey said:

For gosh sake please read Chaits article that I posted earlier in this thread. It clearly explains why it is dead. 

 

It clearly states that it isn't.  

You quoted the part that says so.  I pointed it out to you.  

[nonniey]

25 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

By not in fact killing it, he did not in fact kill it.  

The filibuster still exists in the US Senate.  

If it did not, then it would be impossible for the Republicans to get rid of it   (It would already be gone.)

And you would not be trying to justify them doing it.  

 

It clearly states that it isn't.  

You quoted the part that says so.  I pointed it out to you.  

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.

Edited November 17, 2016 by nonniey

[Larry]

6 hours ago, nonniey said:

The Democrats already stated they were going to get rid of it when they regained control of the Senate. 

 

Glad to see that you've moved from trying to claim that "the Dems got rid of it" to "well, the Dems said that they were going to get rid of it, when they gained power (even though, when they had the power, they didn't get rid of it.)".  

(Granted, I haven't actually seen the Dems making that promise.  All I see is Republicans saying that they intend to do so, and Republican supporters trying to spin a fictional justification for why the Republicans are not responsible for the actions which they take.  Because the power they've got, isn;t enough.  They need more.)  

[Larry]

4 hours ago, nonniey said:

It is not speculation Reid said so himself.

 

So, when Harry Reid said he was going to kill the filibuster, was that before or after he actually did kill it?

[bearrock]

15 minutes ago, nonniey said:

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.

Well, except the head is still attached to the body with nice big wound to the neck (or is it just a flesh wound?).  If republicans feel like filibuster is such a venerable institution and should be saved, nothing is stopping them from not delivering the final blow and killing it off.

Edited November 17, 2016 by bearrock

[twa]

So it is fine to selectively kill the filibuster is what you are saying ...that certainly seems what Reid sad

[Larry]

22 minutes ago, nonniey said:

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.

 

nonniey here is reality - You are standing over someone, holding an axe, announcing that you're about to chop this person's head off and claim that somebody else did it.  

 

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

So it is fine to selectively kill the filibuster is what you are saying ...that certainly seems what Reid sad

If filibuster is bad, selectively kill it, entirely kill it, both seems fine to me.  If filibuster is good, kill parts of it first, kill the rest of it last, both seem bad to me.

[DogofWar1]

22 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If filibuster is bad, selectively kill it, entirely kill it, both seems fine to me.  If filibuster is good, kill parts of it first, kill the rest of it last, both seem bad to me.

The filibuster is like a hammer, it can be used for good or ill.

In the hands of a good man, a hammer can build many homes.

In the hands of a bad man, a hammer can kill many yakuza in a tight corridor over the course of a 3 minute action sequence that is downright awesome.

[thebluefood]

11 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The filibuster is like a hammer, it can be used for good or ill.

In the hands of a good man, a hammer can build many homes.

 

 

[Fergasun]

So, here's reality.  I am sick of arguing a point, to have it argued back and people say: "both sides point fingers at each other". 

GOP blocked Obama's judicial appointments.  They blocked his executive branch nominees (like for the CFPB) just because they were unhappy a CFPB existed.  They were jerks about general "let's have execurive confirmations" just because.  They held up Chuck Hagel just because.  

I agree that Reid was correct to nuke the filibuster for executive agency's and executive branch appointments.

It is simply good governance... to not just grind things to a halt due to nothing substantial. 

If McConnell cares so much about preserving the filibuster, by all means they can reinstate the rule by majority vote come 2017.  To play the "tit for tat" game is stupid.

One party hates government, and uses political power to grind it to a halt, so they can have talking points about how broken and dysfunctional and putrid Washington is.  

And the voters don't care or pay attention.  35% are married to one side, 10% are probably true independents, and the other 20% will go on emotions and speeches.

So McConnell could revive the filibuster he oh so was in love with in 2013 (it may save them from disastrous Trump nominees).  Or he could nuke it even further.  

Quite frankly, the moment the Senate stopped being the actual colllegial body of moderate voice to politics is when my opinion of Congress dropped.  GOP Senators are weak and cared more about power, else we would have somewhere to actual start on with things like immigration, tax cuts, etc.  Poopoo on folks like Maverick McCain, Graham, Murkowski, Rubio, Crapo, Kirk, Collins, Blunt, Ayotte, Portman, Thune, Alexander, Corker, Cornyn, Enzi, Barasso and Hatch.  

They all sold out what makes the great Senate just to be in lockstep Mcconnell - ever since ACA.  So, you can have disagreements on legislation, but there has been very little bipartisanship, just because of political gain and leverage.  Just think if "Gang of 15" were negitiating instead of Boehner-Reid-Biden-McConnell... ugh.  

I blame the GOP, mostly because they let McConnell be McConnell --- and again, no consequence at the ballot box.  "Gays, guns, Roe v. Wade" takes precedence over bipartisanship.  Quite a shame.. and getting rid of the legislative filibuster in Senate will make it worse, when we need bipartisanship compromise... (I have thought true even with Obama as President).

[btfoom]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

By not in fact killing it, he did not in fact kill it.  

The filibuster still exists in the US Senate.  

If it did not, then it would be impossible for the Republicans to get rid of it   (It would already be gone.)

And you would not be trying to justify them doing it.  

 

You can keep holding your hands over your ears, screaming Na-Na-Na all you want, but the bottom line is when Reid used the nuclear option, regardless of the issue, it opened it up for whenever any other Senate want to use it.  Period.  I never said the Filibuster was dead, it is just now completely useless if the majority want to push their agenda through.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, btfoom said:

You can keep holding your hands over your ears, screaming Na-Na-Na all you want, but the bottom line is when Reid used the nuclear option, regardless of the issue, it opened it up for whenever any other Senate want to use it.  Period.  I never said the Filibuster was dead, it is just now completely useless if the majority want to push their agenda through.

 

1)  If that were the case, then why does he (and, I'm pretty sure, you) keep claiming that the Dems did it?  

(Other than the fact that making an honest argument of "well, the Reps doing it is justified, because . . . " won't go over as well.)  

In fact, why not claim that getting rid of it is justified because the Dems changed the filibuster rule from 66 votes to 60, so they could pass the Civil Rights Act?  

I mean, if your actual argument is "any change to any rule justifies any other change to a rule", after all.  

2)  If you never once said it was dead, then I haven't spoken to you, have I?  

I've spoken to the person who has said it's dead.  Multiple times, for probably a dozen posts.  (When he's not pointing out that it actually isn't.  And then running back to making the claim again.)  

3)  You know, for someone who claims that he's not saying the filibuster is dead, you sure do seem to have a problem with people pointing out that it isn't (yet).  

[skinsmarydu]

For the same reason they can still infiltrate your cable box.  In the spirit of Ms. Warren, they made that.

"Next thing you know, they'll take our thoughts away."!~1992

~Dave Mustaine, Megadeth

[TheGoodBits]

 

[Kilmer17]

I think the GOP should only end the Filibuster for bills and appointments that happen in the decade 2011-2020.

Then when the Dems try and use it in the 20s people can claim "Well the GOP only ended it for a certain time" Or some other nonsense.

The GOP used the filibuster to stop Obama and the Dems from advancing their agenda.  The Dems will now use it to stop Trump and the GOP.

Reid eliminated the filibuster for some Senate business so he could advance their agenda, I expect McConnell to do the same.

[tshile]

11 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

The filibuster is like a hammer, it can be used for good or ill.

In the hands of a good man, a hammer can build many homes.

In the hands of a bad man, a hammer can kill many yakuza in a tight corridor over the course of a 3 minute action sequence that is downright awesome.

 

Sounds like the gun control debates

The bottom line is good/bad with the filibuster is subjective, and changing rules with no foresight is dumb. Reid had no problem killing it when it got in the way of his desired legislation. Now that someone's threatening the same he and his party want to cry about it.

All these government powers have the same pitfalls. Setting precedence is something too few regard with the importance it deserves.

We had Obama and Bush set presedence and sign off on things that were silly for the same reasons. Patriot act, ndaa, killing us citizens abroad with drones... there are others.

And now we have President Trump, potentially a cabinet full of alt-right people at worst and hard core right at best, and the government in control of the right. Now you want to **** about precedence? Come off it. Should have thought about that when your guys were setting them.

Worse? The only real check on it, SCOTUS, has been turned into nothing but another political machine and Trump will be able to put possibly hard-right people in there.

Maybe Bush, Obama, Reid, and others should have thought harder about this issue when they were position to do so.

Edited November 17, 2016 by tshile

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Dems killed 50% of the filibuster. Repubs are going to kill the other 50%.

Ive voted a straight Dem ticket for the past 20 years but both sides contributed to the death of the filibuster. When the Dems did it, they were warned and knew that it opened up the pandoras box. They did it anyway for short term gain. Just like the Repubs will do it now for 4 years of short term gain. Just sucks bc the Repubs are going to reap a huge windfall from it compared to what the Dems got.  

 

[btfoom]

54 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Dems killed 50% of the filibuster. Repubs are going to kill the other 50%.

Ive voted a straight Dem ticket for the past 20 years but both sides contributed to the death of the filibuster. When the Dems did it, they were warned and knew that it opened up the pandoras box. They did it anyway for short term gain. Just like the Repubs will do it now for 4 years of short term gain. Just sucks bc the Repubs are going to reap a huge windfall from it compared to what the Dems got.  

 

I think that is exactly where we stand.  I almost always vote GOP and agree that both sides are to blame.  The issue is that the side in power wants to get it's agenda through, and decided that the "old rules" don't necessarily apply if they deem the legislation very important.

While many don't like the filibuster (usually the ones in power), it is a good tool to help make sure both sides are heard and usually (at least in the more distant past) led to compromise.  Now, the Dems finally got fed up with the GOP blocking health care, so they decided to go nuclear.  Now, the GOP will most likely use that same device to get other parts of the agenda through (my guess is SC nomination), which will effectively end the filibuster for good.  It won't officially be gone, but who will let the other party use it from now on?????