U.S. Congress Part 116

[thebluefood]

Democrats made minimal gains in both houses but they still have the majority. Harry Reid tearing Trump Movement a new one on the Senate Floor right now.

Here we go.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by thebluefood

[Larry]

Anticipate that we're going to have a power struggle over whether the new all-Republican government is run by the White House or Congress.  

My money's on Congress.  They're smarter, more experienced, vastly more unified and, frankly, a whole lot more driven.  

 

[TheGoodBits]

Still can't believe that the GOP's unprecedented level of obstructionism actually worked. Obama's eight years of hard work is going to be undone in months. His SCOTUS slot is going to a 40 year old Scalia, possibly Ted Cruz himself. I am truly disgusted by everything right now.

[twa]

Sure looks different than many expected/predicted.

but that ain't unusual.

[DogofWar1]

How the filibuster is employed will be most interesting.  With 48-49 Senators, you would expect Dems to have some capability to craft how the Senate works, but we'll see how that works in practice.

[nonniey]

11 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

How the filibuster is employed will be most interesting.  With 48-49 Senators, you would expect Dems to have some capability to craft how the Senate works, but we'll see how that works in practice.

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.

Edited November 15, 2016 by nonniey

[No Excuses]

This is how I see major Senate fights breaking down:

Dems will likely all vote in unison, save for maybe Munchin (D-WV).

Dems may have support against far right agenda from vulnerable R Senators like Susan Collins, Cory Gardner and Dean Heller

They may also have some support from the anti-Trumps like Flake, Graham and Sasse. You can include some fence pigeons like Rand Paul and John McCain in this group as well, who won't face primaries until 2022.

The House is almost guaranteed to be a clown show but there is hope that the Senate may be an effective check on the Tea Party/Trumpism agenda.

[Larry]

3 hours ago, nonniey said:

Where have you been? Reid killed the filibuster in 2013. 

 

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.  

 

---

 

3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

This is how I see major Senate fights breaking down:

Dems will likely all vote in unison, save for maybe Munchin (D-WV).

Dems may have support against far right agenda from vulnerable R Senators like Susan Collins, Cory Gardner and Dean Heller

They may also have some support from the anti-Trumps like Flake, Graham and Sasse. You can include some fence pigeons like Rand Paul and John McCain in this group as well, who won't face primaries until 2022.

The House is almost guaranteed to be a clown show but there is hope that the Senate may be an effective check on the Tea Party/Trumpism agenda.

 

I hope you're incorrect about the Dems being in unison.  I would hope that there will be at least some things that are actually bipartisan.  

But you're probably right.  

I anticipate very little resistance from Congress towards Trump.  Might be some resistance from Trump, towards things Congress proposes.  (But I doubt it.)  

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Larry

[DogofWar1]

4 hours ago, nonniey said:

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.

They didn't kill it.  Not entirely.

They ended it for non-SCOTUS judicial and executive appointees.  It remains for legislation and SCOTUS appointees.  Even this "ending" could be temporary, but of course it's hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle once he's out.

[nonniey]

1 hour 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.  

 

---

 

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. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by nonniey

[nonniey]

21 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

They didn't kill it.  Not entirely.

They ended it for non-SCOTUS judicial and executive appointees.  It remains for legislation and SCOTUS appointees.  Even this "ending" could be temporary, but of course it's hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle once he's out.

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.  

Edited November 16, 2016 by nonniey

[Hersh]

30 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

They didn't kill it.  Not entirely.

They ended it for non-SCOTUS judicial and executive appointees.  It remains for legislation and SCOTUS appointees.  Even this "ending" could be temporary, but of course it's hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle once he's out.

All factual, but now the GOP will do what they do and claim it ended all filibusters and people will believe it and regurgitate it. 

[nonniey]

9 minutes ago, Hersh said:

All factual, but now the GOP will do what they do and claim it ended all filibusters and people will believe it and regurgitate it. 

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.

Edited November 16, 2016 by nonniey

[Hersh]

52 minutes ago, nonniey said:

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.

So what you are saying is that the Dems didn't actually do what you said. What is interesting is the looking the other way on blocking everything, but getting rid of the filibuster to actually get **** done is what is being frowned upon. I mean, we just had a ******* party sit on their hands for 9 months instead of filling a vacancy on the court and basically didn't do a damn thing for years....ah, what's the point. Keep claiming whatever you want. 

[Going Commando]

Yes, blame the Democrats if the Republicans kill the filibuster on legislation and SC appointments.

It's fun watching the self appointed party of personal responsibility try and slime their way out of any and all responsibility for the crap they pull.

[nonniey]

2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Yes, blame the Democrats if the Republicans kill the filibuster on legislation and SC appointments.

It's fun watching the self appointed party of personal responsibility try and slime their way out of any and all responsibility for the crap they pull.

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.

[Going Commando]

Just now, nonniey said:

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.

This is nothing but a GoP cop out.  There's a difference between ending the filibuster of judicial and executive branch appointments and ending the filibuster of legislation and SC appointments.  The latter are massively more consequential and you know it.

Anyway I have no doubt that the GoP will in fact end the filibuster all together.  They're a party of extremists who don't give a **** about the long term good of the country.  And I don't care what BS reason they give to weasel out of responsibility for doing it, they'll be the ones who took the step to do it.  And then Democrats are going to regain control of Congress eventually, especially with a moron like Trump representing Republicans from the WH.  And then they're going to railroad to GoP in return.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, nonniey said:

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.

. . . . 

 

If Republicans win the presidency and keep control of the Senate, they will eliminate the filibuster in order to enact their agenda. 

 

Thank you for saving me the trouble, by quoting the places where your own recommended sources state that Harry Reid did not get rid of the filibuster, and that Republicans intend to do so, as soon as they gain power.  

So, you'll be abandoning that particular untrue talking point, now.  Right?  

[thebluefood]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-introducing-bill-to-abolish-electoral-college/ar-AAkkFUW
 

Quote

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation on Tuesday to get rid of the Electoral College, after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election despite leading in the popular vote.

 

"In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote," Boxer said in a statement. "In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, 'The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. I couldn't agree more. One person, one vote!"

She added that Clinton, whom she supported, is "on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama."

Old news but worth sharing. Seems like a "statement" piece of legislation that won't go far (and, frankly, might backfire on Boxer and her Democratic colleagues as it will probably be seen as sour grapes).

The Electoral College is far from a perfect system but I don't think this will be enough to rid ourselves of it. If Election 2000 couldn't do it, I doubt this will.

[skinny21]

Does seem that Reid was a bit short-sighted regarding filibusters, even if I understand the frustration with obstruction.  Did this stem from Butts not getting appointed?  I'm fuzzy on the background.

 

How viable is campaign finance reform with the Citizen's United ruling?

There was a lot of interesting talk regarding redistricting in the election thread - I'd like to see Dems gain control of congress by 2020 and find a way to towards a bipartisan solution.  I'm not interested in swinging everything to the other extreme, but a level playing field (or as close as we can get) would be nice.

 

I'd also like to see less outrage from the left (even if I understand it) and the media, and more of an attempt at rational discussion.  Much of the GOP is obviously struggling with reason and I'd like the Dems to show America that they're the adults in the room.  Obama has been doing an ice job in this vein, though I suspect it's hard as hell for him.

[skinny21]

53 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-introducing-bill-to-abolish-electoral-college/ar-AAkkFUW
 

Old news but worth sharing. Seems like a "statement" piece of legislation that won't go far (and, frankly, might backfire on Boxer and her Democratic colleagues as it will probably be seen as sour grapes).

The Electoral College is far from a perfect system but I don't think this will be enough to rid ourselves of it. If Election 2000 couldn't do it, I doubt this will.

Yeah, the "sour grapes" thing is concerning to me - you likely won't convince the necessary people with that attitude (even if it's a perception thing).

[No Excuses]

16 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

How viable is campaign finance reform with the Citizen's United ruling?

Zero chance anything meaningful is ever passed. Any legislation would be taken to the courts and struck down based on the CU ruling.

[nonniey]

9 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Thank you for saving me the trouble, by quoting the places where your own recommended sources state that Harry Reid did not get rid of the filibuster, and that Republicans intend to do so, as soon as they gain power.  

So, you'll be abandoning that particular untrue talking point, now.  Right?  

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. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by nonniey

[Kilmer17]

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.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

17 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Still can't believe that the GOP's unprecedented level of obstructionism actually worked. Obama's eight years of hard work is going to be undone in months. His SCOTUS slot is going to a 40 year old Scalia, possibly Ted Cruz himself. I am truly disgusted by everything right now.

It makes my stomach turn. I am in disbelief as well. 

It gets worse.

Since taking control of the Senate in early 2015, Republicans have confirmed only 17 federal judges, a historically low number. The Senate confirmed just 11 judges in 2015, the fewest since 1960. There have been only two appellate court judges approved since Republicans took control, with seven appeals court nominations left pending. If the Senate doesn't confirm any appellate judges this year, it will have confirmed the fewest since the 1897-98 session, when there were just 25 circuit court judges nationwide, compared with 179 now. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/senate-republicans-barack-obama-judicial-nominees-courts

Because of the GOP obstruction and refusal to move on Federal Judge appointees of Pres Obama, there are 103 Federal Court judge vacancies just waiting to be filled by bible thumping conservatives. 

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies

------------------------------------------------------------------

What ever party had the WH and at least 51 seats in the Senate was going to kill the remaining bits of filibuster. Thats why this election was more important than any other election I can remember, and we lost .. to Donald Trump. 

****ing sickening but any Dems bemoaning the Repubs for doing away w the filibuster for SCOTUS is the definition of sour grapes. We would have done it with a smile on our faces 2-3 times over the next 4 years. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Why am I Mr. Pink?