U.S. Congress Part 116

[LD0506]

There's nothing wrong with the Electoral College, the problems is the political eunuchs that are too timid to use it.

[nonniey]

47 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

nonniey,

BS to blame Reid for the filibuster.  First of all, the filibuster for Senate was never nuked.  It always seems like when the parties change hands, theh discuss nuking the filibuster. 

I am talking about it for legislation... please explain how Reid would be blamed if the Senate goes to majority rules.  

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

[tshile]

3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Someone warned this would be the result if Reid and Co used the nuclear option.  Now people are mad the GOP is using the nuclear option too?  The cries of "Yeah but this is for more important stuff" is lazy.  Reid opened this pandora's box.  This is on him.

not only that, but even though reid said he would do this if it was relevant to the democrats agenda/needs they're still pretending he didn't do anything.

it's a joke.

neither side takes any responsibility anymore. bunch of clowns.

[DogofWar1]

When does the GOP take responsibility for blocking unprecedented numbers of nominees in the Senate?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

Reid didn't nuke the filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees ONLY for no reason.

The GOP was treating Obama like a 2nd class President, with numerous important posts unfilled.

I keep hearing "oh Reid shouldn't of done that, oooooooo it's his fault."

Bull.

The GOP abused the filibuster.  The filibuster was a privilege to the minority to help protect against total tyranny of the majority, not to blockade qualified individuals en masse for political reasons.

You abuse a privilege, and sometimes you lose it.

Reid actually held back.  I know the distinction between ending it entirely and ending it for non-SCOTUS appointees only is sometimes lost, but it's an important one.

Certain filibusters were ended because of an objectively unreasonable outside stimulus.

Now the GOP is gonna kill it entirely, SCOTUS, appointees, legislation and all?  Over what?  The first thing Dems try to stop?

*sigh*

[skinny21]

@Tshile - Is it that posters are saying Reid didn't do anything?  I thought people were taking exception to the notion that the filibuster is dead (it's not yet), and if the GOP finalizes removal of the filibuster, then it's all Reid's fault.  That's like blaming Trump on Democrats.

Reid screwed up from what I can tell (even though I get his frustration).  If the GOP does their part, I'll feel the same about them.

 

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

When does the GOP take responsibility for blocking unprecedented numbers of nominees in the Senate?

 

I hold myself to higher standards than how the GOP behaves.

You?

 

[Going Commando]

35 minutes ago, tshile said:

neither side takes any responsibility anymore. bunch of clowns.

God damn if you don't just eat up some false equivalency.

[nonniey]

16 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

When does the GOP take responsibility for blocking unprecedented numbers of nominees in the Senate?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

Reid didn't nuke the filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees ONLY for no reason.

The GOP was treating Obama like a 2nd class President, with numerous important posts unfilled.

I keep hearing "oh Reid shouldn't of done that, oooooooo it's his fault."

Bull.

The GOP abused the filibuster.  The filibuster was a privilege to the minority to help protect against total tyranny of the majority, not to blockade qualified individuals en masse for political reasons.

You abuse a privilege, and sometimes you lose it.

Reid actually held back.  I know the distinction between ending it entirely and ending it for non-SCOTUS appointees only is sometimes lost, but it's an important one.

Certain filibusters were ended because of an objectively unreasonable outside stimulus.

Now the GOP is gonna kill it entirely, SCOTUS, appointees, legislation and all?  Over what?  The first thing Dems try to stop?

*sigh*

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.

 

[DogofWar1]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I hold myself to higher standards than how the GOP behaves.

You?

 

So let the GOP castrate government for 8 years?

Like what would you do?  The options were "get nothing done" and "eliminate filibuster on *something*."

[visionary]

 

[btfoom]

17 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Where have you been?  (Actually, don't bother answering.  The fact that you made this statement already provides the answer.)  

No, Reid did not kill the filibuster.  (There's no "lame duck rule" for SC appointments, either.)  

But the untrue talking point has been crafted, and handed out, and is being repeated.  

 

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.

[nonniey]

45 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

@Tshile - Is it that posters are saying Reid didn't do anything?  I thought people were taking exception to the notion that the filibuster is dead (it's not yet), and if the GOP finalizes removal of the filibuster, then it's all Reid's fault.  That's like blaming Trump on Democrats.

Reid screwed up from what I can tell (even though I get his frustration).  If the GOP does their part, I'll feel the same about them.

 

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?

Edited November 16, 2016 by nonniey

[DogofWar1]

2 minutes 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.

 

If the filibuster was killed by Reid what the hell were all those Democrats doing about gun laws a little while ago?  http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-democrat-mounts-gun-control-filibuster-1466014395-htmlstory.html

It is disingenuous to suggest the filibuster is "dead."  It's not.  Not for legislation and SCOTUS.

Of course, by framing it as "dead" you can then say Reid killed it and put all the responsibility on him when the GOP actually kills it for real real.

 

And I fail to see how it's a different argument, the events are inextricably intertwined in terms of cause and effect.  The GOP was objectively unreasonable in their actions and the limited removal of certain filibusters was the effect.

[Going Commando]

5 minutes 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.

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it a fact.  If the Senate ends the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments, it will be because Mitch McConnell did so.

Do you think Republicans don't have an interest in preserving it?  The party that is an actual minority of the country?  I hope they do get rid of it because they've proven that they are the ones who abuse it, and when they eventually lose the government, I want Democrats to be able to railroad them without obstacle.  40 year old firebreathing liberal SC justices, capital gains tax, gun control, immigration reform, 15 dollar national minimum wage, and single payer health would be on their way.

[nonniey]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

If the filibuster was killed by Reid what the hell were all those Democrats doing about gun laws a little while ago?  http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-democrat-mounts-gun-control-filibuster-1466014395-htmlstory.html

It is disingenuous to suggest the filibuster is "dead."  It's not.  Not for legislation and SCOTUS.

Of course, by framing it as "dead" you can then say Reid killed it and put all the responsibility on him when the GOP actually kills it for real real.

 

And I fail to see how it's a different argument, the events are inextricably intertwined in terms of cause and effect.  The GOP was objectively unreasonable in their actions and the limited removal of certain filibusters was the effect.

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) . 

[nonniey]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it a fact.  If the Senate ends the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments, it will be because Mitch McConnell did so.

Do you think Republicans don't have an interest in preserving it?  The party that is an actual minority of the country?  I hope they do get rid of it because they've proven that they are the ones who abuse it, and when they eventually lose the government, I want Democrats to be able to railroad them without obstacle.  40 year old firebreathing liberal SC justices, capital gains tax, gun control, immigration reform, 15 dollar national minimum wage, and single payer health would be on their way.

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).

[skinny21]

17 minutes ago, nonniey said:

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 stated that they are not going to allow Republicans to use any filibusters to block appointments or legislation in the future?

Personally, I think it's stupid to always take the Machiavellian route.  Of course, if enough people have the wool over their eyes, it works - see election laws, gerrymandering, obstruction, et. al.  I think it was "stupid" of Reid and I'll think it's "stupid" of the GOP.

[Going Commando]

10 minutes ago, nonniey said:

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).

I think they'd be cutting their own throats if they did away with it on their own.  They have to realize this might be the last time they ever control the government.  They understand the demographic tide that's been waxing against them since 2008.  They know they've got a deeply unpopular and unfit president in the White House to defend.  And they know they precipitated the end of the filibuster for non SC appointments with their unprecedented obstructionism.  They know a game of nuclear procedural chicken will hurt them more in the end.

It'd be stupid of Democrats to enshrine the filibuster in the constitution, it's more of a disadvantage to them than Republicans.  The GoP's best play short of pulling that off is to try and posit themselves as institutionalists, give up the obstructionism and start compromising, and shame Democrats into preserving the filibuster on the grounds that it would be an unprovoked violation of an important democratic norm.  But the GoP isn't good at keeping the big picture in mind.  They're going to try and enact as much of an arch conservative agenda as they can in the next two years and it's going to hurt them when they eventually lose control of the government again.

[DogofWar1]

37 minutes ago, nonniey said:

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) . 

I like how all these justifications for pre-emptive action by the GOP use some combination of counter-factuals on past actions and speculation re: intent and future actions.

Whether they needed to remove the legislation filibuster or not is somewhat moot when you consider that the filibuster still exists either way.

"The filibuster is already dead."

That is factually false.

But the narrative that it is, is absolutely one the GOP wants.

 

You know, it's funny, when the first filibuster "crisis" of this millenium happened during the Bush presidency (a "crisis" which was magnitudes smaller in scope than the 2013 "crisis"), the GOP threatened to kill the filibuster and said it'd be the democrats fault if they had to do it.

Fast forward to 2013, and the GOP acted in a manner magnitudes worse than democrats from 02-06.  Democrats did what Republicans threatened to do for much less, and yet now, fast forward to today, and it's all the democrats fault.

The GOP laid the groundwork to blame the obstructing party back in 2006 for far lesser offenses, and then became a much worse example of obstruction by 2013, but don't want the blame!

 

It's absurd.

Edited November 16, 2016 by DogofWar1

[nonniey]

44 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I like how all these justifications for pre-emptive action by the GOP use some combination of counter-factuals on past actions and speculation re: intent and future actions.

Whether they needed to remove the legislation filibuster or not is somewhat moot when you consider that the filibuster still exists either way.

"The filibuster is already dead."

That is factually false.

But the narrative that it is, is absolutely one the GOP wants.

 

You know, it's funny, when the first filibuster "crisis" of this millenium happened during the Bush presidency (a "crisis" which was magnitudes smaller in scope than the 2013 "crisis"), the GOP threatened to kill the filibuster and said it'd be the democrats fault if they had to do it.

Fast forward to 2013, and the GOP acted in a manner magnitudes worse than democrats from 02-06.  Democrats did what Republicans threatened to do for much less, and yet now, fast forward to today, and it's all the democrats fault.

The GOP laid the groundwork to blame the obstructing party back in 2006 for far lesser offenses, and then became a much worse example of obstruction by 2013, but don't want the blame!

 

It's absurd.

It is not speculation Reid said so himself.

[visionary]

 

[DogofWar1]

14 minutes ago, nonniey said:

It is not speculation Reid said so himself...

...with conditions.

Reid: “Unless after this election there is a dramatic change to go back to the way it used to be, the Senate will have to evolve as it has in the past,”

It's vague, sure, but it's clearly not unconditional.  It's speculation to assume the conditions would he met.

 

Also, Reid won't even be there next Congress.  Schumer is in charge, and would have been in charge, and was mum on the matter.  So again, speculation, because Reid, while he would still be an influential figure among Dems, would not have any actual power to do anything.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

God damn if you don't just eat up some false equivalency.

and you love to throw around logical fallacies incorrectly.

you're quite literally that guy on the internet that read the Wikipedia page on logical fallacies and now just run around listing them thinking he sounds smart

2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

So let the GOP castrate government for 8 years?

Like what would you do?  The options were "get nothing done" and "eliminate filibuster on *something*."

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of that type of governing because it sounds great while you have the power, problem is someone else eventually gets the power... i have a really, really bad time accepting the way the executive branch (and federal government in general) just keeps sucking up 'responsibilities' from everywhere else; precisely because of what we have now, Trump as president.

But Reid suspended the filibuster for portions, and then specifically said he would do it for the rest so long as it met the needs of the democrats.

Now the other side is supposedly planning on doing it and you, mr logical fallacies up there, larry and a few others are trying to hide behind the fact that Reid never actually followed through with his plan to do exactly what we're assuming the GOP will do. You're blasting the GOP, who hasn't done anything yet, in the meantime.

Then you try to deflect the conversation into "well the republicans were obstructionist", with just a little pre-defense for the democrats doing the exact same thing under Trump.

That's what I was commenting on. That's the clownery.

And the politicians only get away with it because the vast majority of this people are just like you. Cool with whatever so long as you agree with the intent/outcome, but once someone disagrees with you takes part in the same tactics then holy hell time to protest and whine etc

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by tshile

[DogofWar1]

Tshile, two key points on Reid:

1. he did not go beyond 2013, which I think has been covered.

2. Reid would not be in Congress at the start of the 2017 Congress.  His statements should not be used to justify anything extra.

 

It'd be like if in 2008 GWB had said he would expand the Supreme Court in 2009 if it served the GOP's purposes.  Like, okay, that's not great, but he's not gonna be President in 2009 so unless McCain chimed in and was like "yup, that's the plan," I think we need to take it with a grain of salt, and certainly Obama could not use it as justification to expand and pack the court.

Reid is out.  We should, as such, stop trying to use his post-retirement-announcement words as justification for further filibuster changes.

 

The 2013 changes came as a result of a real, unreasonable, stimulus.  We don't have a real and unreasonable stimulus yet.  The idea of the filibuster being killed should be some far flung hypothetical, not something discussed as likely to happen early next year.

 

You should also note that this whole filibuster debate mostly stemmed from the contention that the filibuster was already dead.  I'm blasting that contention as justification for further action, which blocs of the GOP are advancing, NOT blasting the GOP for doing it, as obviously they haven't done it yet.  Nor am I blasting any changes regardless of circumstances.  If Trump magically turns out to be great for the USA and democrats obstruct him like the GOP did Obama, I would not be so angry at the GOP's rule changes.

 

And I take issue with your characterization of me here.  I have always been for judicious use of the filibuster.  If I have not already stated somewhere, and I am fairly certain I have, let me state here that I oppose blanket use and abuse of the filibuster.  The appropriate use of the filibuster is to stop highly inappropriate legislation and appointees.  If that is how the democrats wield it in the coming Congress, then good.  If they emulate the GOP from 2011-2014, then I will be much more understanding of GOP action on that front.

 

And I also will note that you again do actually partake in false equivalency in your last paragraph.  The history of the filibuster is sufficiently nuanced that it can not really be fit into the "hypocrisy" mould you establish at the end.  Not yet at least.

[Going Commando]

50 minutes ago, tshile said:

and you love to throw around logical fallacies incorrectly.

you're quite literally that guy on the internet that read the Wikipedia page on logical fallacies and now just run around listing them thinking he sounds smart

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.