The Glade 4.0

Ave bossa nova! Similis duci seneca.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Lets see, the great majority of the large population centers are blue. Small town America is red.

There is a good joke about population density in there somewhere.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I'm just wondering what stupid parliamentary trick is going to get pulled out this time in order to ignore the eventual filibusters. Can the nuclear option and budget reconciliation be used multiple times, or are they each a one time thing and they have to come up with something else?

You don't pay much attention to Congress do you? Harry Reid rescinded Senate Rule #22. There are no more filibusters. You only need a simple majority to close debate.

_________________

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... e/3662445/

Senate Rule 22 was changed for nominations outside of the Supreme Court, effectively rescinding Rule 22.

You should really pay more attention, since this was discussed on these very forums.

_________________

You mean like it was with Obama care? I will agree with you that the Republicans shouldn't use that B.S even if you won't agree with me the Democrats shouldn't either.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Uhm, according to your own link it doesn't apply to legislation, so "no more filibusters" is kind of a stretch.

I'm surprised this just passed now. Didn't Republicans already use this to break a Democratic filibuster of Bush's nominees during his term?

They threatened to it never came to pass. I was against it then too and said as much here.
Well on the here at was at the time

The just of my dissent being. We'll be out of power someday and they'll use it against us.

Also see my previous post

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

It was tabled amongst outrage by Democrats, which always makes for a fun "compare the quote" event.

This change applies only to nominees other than Supreme Court nominees and does not apply to legislation. It does not "effectively rescind" rule 22, nor was it an action by Harry Reid. At most, it weakens rule 22. Pay attention.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You've missed the point DE which is the dems don't have a leg to stand on while whining about what the reps might do

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I was not contesting that point. I have no objection to changing Senate or House rules when there's bipartisan agreement that the rules are problematic or obsolete, but it should not be done by the party in power to make it easier to get its way.

By the same token, the filibuster should be used sparingly. However, when one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the other party has little choice but to filibuster.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except both sides don't agree, at least not simultaneously

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Then that's a good indication not to mess around with the rules.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Exactly

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

unless of course one side uses/abuses the rules disproportionally.

How many nominees have been filibustered by the republicans in this presidency? Most of them were mostly just for spite.

What about the rules against well poisoning hyperbole?

What nominee has Obama wanted that he hasn't got?

Also if we're going to talk about who dishes up strife and spite, I have two words: Clarence Thomas.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Obviously only the minority side would be the one to filibuster, and therefore would use the rules "disproportionately".

It isn't being done "out of spite" either. The House doesn't vote on Presidential appointments, and giving the sorts of people Obama has been appointing, filibustering them is not out of line. Saying it was done out of spite is just a cute way of saying "I don't agree with them, therefore they could not possibly have had any reason other than personal pettiness."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... have-been/

This is the updated graphic (not the original that was slightly incorrect in that it referred to cloture votes which can happen multiple times in a single nomination)
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=276






THIS is why the 'nuclear' option was invoked.

I really hope this thread is around in 4 years if the shoe is on the other foot

Doing anything that affects the lives of power 300,000,000 plus people for decades should require the broadest of consenus .

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

ah. so now your argument has gone from 'your statement is hyperbole' and 'Obama got every nomination he wanted' to 'your side is going to do the same to us'

a) moving the goalposts
b) you have no evidence to support that statement. You'll forgive me if I don't base my view on policy based on your prognostication ability.
c) Clarance Thomas was confirmed by a majority vote, cloture was never invoked, and he was never filibustered. Serious charges against him were investigated.
d) many of these nominations were for judges affecting only a small portion of the country.

While not condoning abuse of filibuster on nominations, I feel it's worth pointing out that not all Presidents' appointments are equally offensive to reasonable opposition.

Therefore, it's not outrageous to suggest that Republican obstinacy or spite might not be the sole causal factor, but that the statistics you're quoting could also be reminiscent of Obama's behavior, as well.

I've done no extensive research to make a positive assertion, but the notion that those statistics prove anything is so fallacious that it bore mentioning.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The real problem is that the number of competitive Senate and House seats have become so low, that overall, a randomly selected Republican is more likely to have his seat taken by a Tea Party challenger in a primary election than by a Democrat in a general election. This problem doesn't exist at all on the left, Democratic incumbents losing the nomination are almost unheard of. Tea Party voters are notorious ideologues that hate even the idea of compromise. These are the people that actually wanted the federal government to default rather than give in on anything. So of course the Republicans are obstructing everything, if they don't they'll get replaced with someone who will.