U.S. Congress Part 116

[nonniey]

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yes, I do know what it means.  

So do you.  (You've even quoted it.)  

It means you're still knowingly lying about your position.  

The filibuster is not dead.  Not de facto dead.  Not de jure dead.  Not gluteus maximus dead.  Not mostly dead.  

If it were, then

1)  There would be no need to kill it.  (It would already be dead.)  And 

2)  You wouldn't be trying to build a false narrative to try to shift the blame away from the people who (supposedly) intend to kill it.

Again this statement shows you just don't know what De Facto means. You just don't.  Heck the article I posted explained  it, I've explained it (for years now), if you have a friend who is a social studies or political science teacher show him this thread and have him explain it to you. 

Edited November 18, 2016 by nonniey

[nonniey]

22 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Let's just cut to the chase Nonniey.  Given the fact that we just went through 6 years where Republican senators used every parliamentary procedures known to mankind to grind the administration to a halt, do you think the filibuster should be preserved?  If so, is it acceptable for the minority to use it in the manner that the republicans did during the Obama administration?

Academic as there is no way to preserve it short of a Constitutional Amendment (as I've explained and Chait and numerous other political writers have written about, - it is de facto dead).  I've said it would be stupid for the Republicans to keep in place any part of it that effects their attempts to seat nominees or legislation when the other side has already stated and shown that they won't let it effect them when they are in power. 

As for your second question this was just a long escalation of abuse of the use of the filibuster. The Republicans the last eight years abused it worse than any previous Senate, During the Bush administration the Dem Senate minorities abused it more than any of the congresses previous to them and so on.  If Reid hadn't killed (De Facto) it I'm sure the Dem congress coming in would have exceeded what the Republicans did.   And don't forget Ried thoroughly abused Senate scheduling and amendment access to bills (More than any other Senate Majority leader ever has - Reid has a pretty wretched Senate legacy).  

[Fergasun]

Graham and Hatch just went on record as not voting to "kill" filibuster... any Senator should realize it would be a huge mistake - idealogy notwithstanding.... the Senate should value their power.  

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Academic as there is no way to preserve it short of a Constitutional Amendment (as I've explained and Chait and numerous other political writers have written about, - it is de facto dead).  I've said it would be stupid for the Republicans to keep in place any part of it that effects their attempts to seat nominees or legislation when the other side has already stated and shown that they won't let it effect them when they are in power. 

As for your second question this was just a long escalation of abuse of the use of the filibuster. The Republicans the last eight years abused it worse than any previous Senate, During the Bush administration the Dem Senate minorities abused it more than any of the congresses previous to them and so on.  If Reid hadn't killed (De Facto) it I'm sure the Dem congress coming in would have exceeded what the Republicans did.   And don't forget Ried thoroughly abused Senate scheduling and amendment access to bills (More than any other Senate Majority leader ever has - Reid has a pretty wretched Senate legacy).  

And I think the increasing abuse of the filibuster and the voters' unwillingness to punish the offending minority meant there had to be a change.

FWIW, filibuster is not de facto dead because it is neither actually dead nor is in effect dead.  While you may think the most likely outcome of Reid's partial repeal of the filibuster is an eventual full repeal (many may agree), it is not the only or inevitable outcome.  Traditionalist such as Hatch has said post election that he is opposed to the repeal.  There may be repub senators who feel that the filibuster gives them cover from having to publicly oppose some of Trump's controversial, unpopular with own state ideas.  Democrats may feel that overuse of the filibuster prior to full repeal will be too unpopular and be judicious with it, which in turn may cause the repubs to say we have more to gain by being the adults in the room rather than fully repealing a now rarely used procedure.  There are various plausible scenarios where the republican senate doesn't the kill off the filibuster.  Just because Ried's partial repeal made full repeal the most likely scenario, doesn't mean the filibuster is at this point in effect dead.

[DogofWar1]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

it is de facto dead).

 

3 minutes ago, nonniey said:

 I've said it would be stupid for the Republicans to keep in place any part of it

These two do not agree with each other* because that which is dead in practice cannot magically just be used because if something is de facto, it, well, IS.  If the term is used to denote a state of being at the present time (it IS X) then that state must exist for it to be de facto X.  If some action must be taken to create this new state, then something cannot be de facto in that state at that time.  I suppose an exception is if the future state is inevitable, but it's not.  The GOP does not have to further weaken/destroy the filibuster, indeed, if Graham AND Hatch AND all the Dems agree not to kill the filibuster, the filibuster might not actually be killed even if the GOP tries, which means that the state isn't inevitable and therefore we cannot presently be de facto in that state.

*There is only one way these two can agree with each other, and that's if the filibuster was ALWAYS de facto dead.  Because at present it's alive for legislation and SCOTUS, and yet you allege it is de facto dead, but stuff has to happen for it to die, so for it to be de facto dead it needs to have always been dead.  Which sorta could make sense, philosophically, maybe; the filibuster has existed essentially at the pleasure of the Congress, it has always been able to kill it or change it whenever it wanted.  Today, the GOP says it could kill it if it wanted, which supposedly makes it de facto dead, but they said the same thing in 2005.

 

If we're buying your logic though...:

   - the filibuster didn't "die" in 2013.  It "died" in 1917 when the first known proposal of the "nuclear" option was made, essentially meaning that literally any rule of the Senate could be changed with a simple majority vote at the beginning of a term.  Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters; at some future point the filibuster would be, due to this "nuclear" option in the rules, eliminated.

   - The more modern "death" of the filibuster truly began in 2005, when the GOP and Dems came to a head on the issue.  The GOP was prepared to use the nuclear option then.  There were basically two options left, Dems could back down, or the GOP could kill the filibuster.  Dems backed down that time.  But the fact that killing the filibuster was even on the table meant it was not only possible, as established in 1917, but was very much within the realm of probable.

Which is where it stands now.

 

If the filibuster is dead because the GOP can kill it, it died a two-part death in 1917 and 2005.

If it's not dead because the GOP still has to kill it before it's dead, then the GOP has to kill it has to actually, y'know, kill it, which means it cannot yet be truly dead.

[nonniey]

12 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

These two do not agree with each other* because that which is dead in practice cannot magically just be used because if something is de facto, it, well, IS.  If the term is used to denote a state of being at the present time (it IS X) then that state must exist for it to be de facto X.  I.truly dead.

Not at all - The minority cannot use the filibuster anymore because the minute they do the majority will eliminate it. Ergo it is in fact dead. 

Edited November 18, 2016 by nonniey

[visionary]

 

[twa]

12 hours ago, nonniey said:

Not at all - The minority cannot use the filibuster anymore because the minute they do the majority will eliminate it. Ergo it is in fact dead. 

 

that the filibuster was eliminated for minor things does not bode well for it does it.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[btfoom]

On 11/17/2016 at 10:37 PM, DogofWar1 said:

 

These two do not agree with each other* because that which is dead in practice cannot magically just be used because if something is de facto, it, well, IS.  If the term is used to denote a state of being at the present time (it IS X) then that state must exist for it to be de facto X.  If some action must be taken to create this new state, then something cannot be de facto in that state at that time.  I suppose an exception is if the future state is inevitable, but it's not.  The GOP does not have to further weaken/destroy the filibuster, indeed, if Graham AND Hatch AND all the Dems agree not to kill the filibuster, the filibuster might not actually be killed even if the GOP tries, which means that the state isn't inevitable and therefore we cannot presently be de facto in that state.

*There is only one way these two can agree with each other, and that's if the filibuster was ALWAYS de facto dead.  Because at present it's alive for legislation and SCOTUS, and yet you allege it is de facto dead, but stuff has to happen for it to die, so for it to be de facto dead it needs to have always been dead.  Which sorta could make sense, philosophically, maybe; the filibuster has existed essentially at the pleasure of the Congress, it has always been able to kill it or change it whenever it wanted.  Today, the GOP says it could kill it if it wanted, which supposedly makes it de facto dead, but they said the same thing in 2005.

 

If we're buying your logic though...:

   - the filibuster didn't "die" in 2013.  It "died" in 1917 when the first known proposal of the "nuclear" option was made, essentially meaning that literally any rule of the Senate could be changed with a simple majority vote at the beginning of a term.  Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters; at some future point the filibuster would be, due to this "nuclear" option in the rules, eliminated.

   - The more modern "death" of the filibuster truly began in 2005, when the GOP and Dems came to a head on the issue.  The GOP was prepared to use the nuclear option then.  There were basically two options left, Dems could back down, or the GOP could kill the filibuster.  Dems backed down that time.  But the fact that killing the filibuster was even on the table meant it was not only possible, as established in 1917, but was very much within the realm of probable.

Which is where it stands now.

 

If the filibuster is dead because the GOP can kill it, it died a two-part death in 1917 and 2005.

If it's not dead because the GOP still has to kill it before it's dead, then the GOP has to kill it has to actually, y'know, kill it, which means it cannot yet be truly dead.

The bold above shows that you are completely wrong.

Threatening to use something (and never actually doing it) is not the same as actually using that item.

The GOP may have bluffed the Dems, but that was never called.  The Dems actually pulled the trigger.  Doesn't matter that they said that they were just using it in a small area.  Once you open the box, you can't "Un-Open it".  The Dems are to blame for using the nuclear option, and they will pay dearly for it.  Hello, Supreme Justice Cruz.  LOL.

[Larry]

deleted  

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Larry

[btfoom]

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by btfoom
Deleted

[btfoom]

I want to apologize to Larry and any other folks on this forum whom I may have offended.

I was wrong to use an ES user-id in my post (since deleted), but I can't know who may have read the original post.  I will strive to not make the same mistake in future postings.

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

If you see any progressives angry at her reelection, ask them what DCCC means. Then laugh at their hippie asses and tell them to go **** themselves after they finish your latte order.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mooka]

Good job democrats, keep electing unpopular leaders. 

 

What's the worst that could happen....

[btfoom]

1 hour ago, Mooka said:

Good job democrats, keep electing unpopular leaders. 

 

What's the worst that could happen....

... and 6 months ago there were so many articles, tweets, and posts that said the GOP was in a civil-war and out of touch with 'regular America'.

 

This is a disaster for the Dems as they didn't learn their lessons from the last election.  As Tim Ryan said, they are no longer a national party.  They are a party of the East Coast (northern mostly) and West Coast.

[@DCGoldPants]

GOP rolled over for Trump to avoid a Civil War.

 

Dems continue to be stupid and not see what they just did today. The same old tired leaders aren't going to improve anything.

[nonniey]

13 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

GOP rolled over for Trump to avoid a Civil War.

.......

Yes they did somewhat do that.  But there are some Trump supporters that want to pursue that option so don't only think the stupidity is confined to the Democrats the past three weeks.

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, btfoom said:

... and 6 months ago there were so many articles, tweets, and posts that said the GOP was in a civil-war and out of touch with 'regular America'.

 

This is a disaster for the Dems as they didn't learn their lessons from the last election.  As Tim Ryan said, they are no longer a national party.  They are a party of the East Coast (northern mostly) and West Coast.

 

Disaster is an overstatement. Democrats hold considerable power in pretty much every region that contributes the most to US GDP.

 

Trump won the geographic landmass. Hillary and Democrats won in areas where economic growth is centered. Consider me skeptical that the GOP has ideas to help its rural and small town base.

[btfoom]

2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

Disaster is an overstatement. Democrats hold considerable power in pretty much every region that contributes the most to US GDP.

 

Trump won the geographic landmass. Hillary and Democrats won in areas where economic growth is centered. Consider me skeptical that the GOP has ideas to help its rural and small town base.

Yeah, you probably are right.  Just like when 8 years ago people declared it all over for the GOP.  It is very daunting to be sure, though.

 

The rallying cry around "All things GOP" will be strong.  I just don't see Pelosi making the necessary changes to get Dems back on track.

 

The biggest issue the Dems face is the GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats (with many in states won by Trump).

 

According to this article:  http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/306210-10-senate-seats-that-could-flip-in-2018

 

Here are 10 Senate seats that could flip, in alphabetical order:

 

Bill Nelson  (D-Fla.)

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)

Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)

Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)

Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Bob Casey (D-Pa.) 

Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

<rest at link>

 

and remember, these folks won on a tide of voter turnout in the 2012 election that got Obama his second term.  No Obama to help this time.  That is a very tough road that could easily lead to a filibuster-proof majority (not that the filibuster will mean much anymore).