Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

U.S. Congress Part 116


Recommended Posts

16 minutes 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 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).

Edited by nonniey
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

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

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).  

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The only way you could see a bill ending the EC be effect is if the winning party pushed it. 

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.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The only way you could see a bill ending the EC be effect is if the winning party pushed it. 

It couldnt be changed via a bill.  It would take a Constitutional Amendment.  Which would require 2/3s of both Houses, THEN 3/4s of the States.

I guess the could pass a bill condemning it, but it would be toothless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes 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.

No, what's lazy is trying to pin the crap the GoP has done or will do on Democrats.  It's as lazy and wrong headed as blaming liberals for Trump getting elected.  It's as lazy and wrong headed as Mitch McConnell blaming Obama for not explaining well enough why the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was a stupid law as he ****ing overrode his veto.

Of course you know that removing the veto for executive branch and lower court appointments is a different animal than removing it for legislation and SC appointments.  The minority is not going to be crushed by partisan appointments to those positions, nor will they have vast reaching consequences for the entire country like legislation and SC appointments do.

BTW, why did the Democrats end the filibuster for executive branch and lower court appointments?  What was it in response to?  What would the GoP ending the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments be in response to?  Do you think Democrats will now behave in a similar way to Congressional Republicans during Obama's presidency?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Of course you know that removing the veto for executive branch and lower court appointments is a different animal than removing it for legislation and SC appointments.  The minority is not going to be crushed by partisan appointments to those positions, nor will they have vast reaching consequences for the entire country like legislation and SC appointments do.

 

The Dems were going to do away w the filibuster on day 1 if they won. Come on man. Both parties knew, to the victor go the spoils. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

No, what's lazy is trying to pin the crap the GoP has done or will do on Democrats.  It's as lazy and wrong headed as blaming liberals for Trump getting elected.  It's as lazy and wrong headed as Mitch McConnell blaming Obama for not explaining well enough why the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was a stupid law as he ****ing overrode his veto.

Of course you know that removing the veto for executive branch and lower court appointments is a different animal than removing it for legislation and SC appointments.  The minority is not going to be crushed by partisan appointments to those positions, nor will they have vast reaching consequences for the entire country like legislation and SC appointments do.

BTW, why did the Democrats end the filibuster for executive branch and lower court appointments?  What was it in response to?  What would the GoP ending the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments be in response to?  Do you think Democrats will now behave in a similar way to Congressional Republicans during Obama's presidency?

It's no different.  What Reid did was say we're changing the rules because our side cant win under the current rules.  Now that the threat is that the GOP will do the same you guys all of a sudden think there is a crisis?  Too bad.  Of COURSE the GOP is now going to exploit the hole that Reid created.  That's what they are, and what they do.  And Reid knows that and should have acted in a way that showed he knew that.  But for him and the Dems, the WIN was far more important than the subsequent fallout.  So here we are.  None of this happens if Reid acts like a statesman instead of a partisan douchebag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

It's no different.  What Reid did was say we're changing the rules because our side cant win under the current rules.  Now that the threat is that the GOP will do the same you guys all of a sudden think there is a crisis?  Too bad.  Of COURSE the GOP is now going to exploit the hole that Reid created.  That's what they are, and what they do.  And Reid knows that and should have acted in a way that showed he knew that.  But for him and the Dems, the WIN was far more important than the subsequent fallout.  So here we are.  None of this happens if Reid acts like a statesman instead of a partisan douchebag.

So you're taking it for granted that the Republicans are incapable of acting like statemen instead of partisan douchebags.  You take it for granted that it's up to Democrats to be the adults in our government.  I guess my question then would be, do you vote for Republicans?

Also let me get this straight: did Harry Reid end the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I dont know about that. Certainly w the Dems doing it first, it is a no-brainer at this point but I think the Repubs would have done it eventually anyway. 

That's probably true.  But it doesnt excuse Reid at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

So you're taking it for granted that the Republicans are incapable of acting like statemen instead of partisan douchebags.  You take it for granted that it's up to Democrats to be the adults in our government.  I guess my question then would be, do you vote for Republicans?

Also let me get this straight: did Harry Reid end the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments?

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

So you're taking it for granted that the Republicans are incapable of acting like statemen instead of partisan douchebags.  You take it for granted that it's up to Democrats to be the adults in our government.  I guess my question then would be, do you vote for Republicans?

Also let me get this straight: did Harry Reid end the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments?

NONE of them are capable of acting like Statesmen.  NONE of them are acting like adults.

 

I voted for Libertarians down the ballot.  I voted for Bill Nelson the last time he was up for election but will not going forward.

Harry Reid ended the filibuster for some things.  The GOP will now end it for everything.  Both are culpable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I dont know about that. Certainly w the Dems doing it first, it is a no-brainer at this point but I think the Repubs would have done it eventually anyway. 

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........

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nonniey said:

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 read your article.  And I'll ask again, did Reid end the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments?  If not, then who would do so?

At what point do you hold a party responsible for what they affirmatively do and choose?  Do Republicans not fear the same reprisal from Democrats if they end all filibustering?

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

NONE of them are capable of acting like Statesmen.  NONE of them are acting like adults.

 

I voted for Libertarians down the ballot.  I voted for Bill Nelson the last time he was up for election but will not going forward.

Harry Reid ended the filibuster for some things.  The GOP will now end it for everything.  Both are culpable.

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

Edited by nonniey
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Harry Reid ended the filibuster for some things.  The GOP will now end it for everything.  Both are culpable.

I agree.  But the GoP ending it for legislation and SC appointments is more consequential.  And they're going to pay a price for doing it when Democrats regain control of the Senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I read your article.  And I'll ask again, did Reid end the filibuster for legislation and SC appointments?  If not, then who would do so?

At what point do you hold a party responsible for what they affirmatively do and choose?  Do Republicans not fear the same reprisal from Democrats if they end all filibustering?

Im sure they believe the Dems are going to end it anyway if they need to in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate is not going to go nuclear for legislation.  Not sure about SC nominees... I think they should not nuke the rules for SC nominees... but we get to see the whole struggle reverse.

The Senate is the great moderator of American policy --- every Senator talks about how special it is as an institution, need for compromise, etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Im sure they believe the Dems are going to end it anyway if they need to in the future.

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)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

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

 

Depends on if you are talking the candidates funds themselves or the superpacs ect.

You can certainly reform from who and how much a candidate gets contributions from.....CU did not unbind that.

You could also tighten up on cooperation between the two.

CU was mainly on not limiting corps/peoples ability to address issues issues thru advertising and advocacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nonniey said:

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).  

If the left wrangles the Senate away in 2018, it would be a political miracle that puts '94 to shame.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I agree.  But the GoP ending it for legislation and SC appointments is more consequential.  And they're going to pay a price for doing it when Democrats regain control of the Senate.

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. 

Edited by nonniey
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • thebluefood changed the title to U.S. Congress Part 116

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...