HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Even IF the rules had bee...

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:27 PM

Even IF the rules had been extremely changed in The Senate, it would not have affected The House



The Senate rules have NOTHING to do with The House.

The Republicans in The House would have still refused to debate and vote on bills from The Senate.

I think the outrage being directed at Senator Reid on the TV box is over-the-top and uncalled for.




23 replies, 1073 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Even IF the rules had been extremely changed in The Senate, it would not have affected The House (Original post)
Tx4obama Jan 2013 OP
DJ13 Jan 2013 #1
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #2
DJ13 Jan 2013 #7
obama2terms Jan 2013 #12
Laurian Jan 2013 #3
bowens43 Jan 2013 #4
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #5
Still Sensible Jan 2013 #6
Atticus Jan 2013 #8
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #9
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #10
earthside Jan 2013 #14
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #16
Isoldeblue Jan 2013 #17
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #11
msongs Jan 2013 #15
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #13
dsc Jan 2013 #18
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #19
dsc Jan 2013 #20
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #21
dsc Jan 2013 #23
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #22

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:30 PM

1. Are you trying to convince us

or yourself that this was a good deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:34 PM

2. I have stated several times all over DU that Sen Reid got the majority of what he wanted.


Reforming the filibuster was HIS project and if he is happy with the deal he got then so be it.
We got some changes - changes that will not piss off the other side of the isle,
so that is a lot better than it was before.

I do not have to convince myself of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:38 PM

7. Sen Reid got the majority of what he wanted.

Its too bad what he wanted wasnt what we needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:50 PM

12. Well

I was mad at first but I read about the deal and I say it's better than nothing. Neither side can get everything they want I think we should actually see how it works before we jump to conclusions so fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:36 PM

3. Tx4obama, I almost always agree with your posts and

certainly value your opinion, but I don't understand your staunch support for Reid on this filibuster deal. I'm furious about it. Even if the House ultimately stops the progress on important issues, it would be obvious to the less politically aware that the Republicans are obstructionists. That alone could boost Democrats in the future.

I think Harry is too entrenched in the Washington culture and doesn't really care what grassroots Democrats want. Oh, what I wouldn't give for some politicians who considered the common good over their own interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:36 PM

4. Do you have point? Reid caved, took the cowards way out, it's what our leaders do.

stop trying to rationalize a bone head asshole move on reids part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:37 PM

5. I think Reid's sell out was over-the-top and uncalled for..not to mention typically 3rd Way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:37 PM

6. I largely disagree

Your statement of fact is indeed correct. However,

The acceptance of such a tepid group of changes still leaves too much room for the GOP minority and some of its wacko individuals to impede appointments.

If Reid was going to cave in this manner, he had absolutely should not have trumpeted multiple times that he "had 51 votes" for significant filibuster modifications. Yes, when he said that, he also said he "remained hopeful" he could get a deal.

I'm sorry, Reid set those expectations himself... he deserves the outrage IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:38 PM

8. It also would not have affected the British Parliament. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:39 PM

9. It's not the end of the world. It will be better than it was before...


Harry Reid: ‘I’m Not Ready…To Get Rid Of The 60-Vote Threshold’

Reid isn’t ready for filibuster reform and told Ezra Klein why.

“With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.”

What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report.

…the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.


http://www.alan.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-im-not-ready-to-get-rid-of-the-60-vote-threshold/


Full Ezra Klein Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/


=====================================


Also...

Two of the things that Reid has been fighting against will be eliminated/fixed by the new rules.

I think even though these are modest changes they are going to be a big improvement
I've been following the judicial nominations for several years and the new change is going to be a HUGE help in getting them confirmed faster.

"... post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2 ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280012



Also there will be NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections


-snip-

Under the agreement, the minority party will be able to offer two amendments on each bill, a major concession to Republicans. This change is made only as a standing order, not a rules change, and expires at the end of the term.

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

The arrangement between Reid and McConnell means that the majority leader will not resort to his controversial threat, known as the "nuclear option," to change the rules via 51 votes on the first day of the congressional session. Reid may have been able to achieve greater reforms that way, but several members of his own party were uncomfortable with the precedent it would have set. And Reid himself, an institutionalist, wanted a bipartisan deal for the long-term health of the institution. Reid presented McConnell with two offers -- one bipartisan accord consisting of weaker reforms, and a stronger package Reid was willing to ram through on a partisan vote. McConnell chose the bipartisan route.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:42 PM

10. Also ...


-snip-

In a nod to those favoring the talking filibuster, Reid and McConnell agreed to use existing Senate rules aimed at spotlighting those who are objecting to legislation. Under their plan, if a senator tries to block a bill, Senate leaders — or senators leading floor debate — can demand that those who are objecting come to the floor to make their concerns heard. If a senator does not agree to speed debate during so-called quorum calls, the Senate will force live quorum calls that would compel senators’ attendance on the floor.

-snip-

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/filibuster-reid-democrats-nuclear-threat-86704_Page3.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:56 PM

14. Reposting the same thing for the umpteenth time ...

... we get it, Reid is a political god.

But a Senate that was sending bill after bill to the House would have been putting a lot of pressure on Boehner to at least bring those bills to the House floor for a vote.

Now Boehner can just let McConnell to his dirty work for him.

Get this ... Reid failed as a leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:00 PM

16. I do not think so. Look at all the ridiculous bills The House has sent over to The Senate...


... that did not put any pressure on The Senate to vote on 'their' BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:12 PM

17. That is short sighted thinking to be used as justification. Reid caved and I'm mad as hell about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:45 PM

11. That's about as stretchy as it gets. The Senate should go fallow because the House sucks?

A crappy House means the Senate should not lead as upper chamber by ceasing the undemocratic obstruction?
Reid's deal is bad and his 'Hand Shake Bi Partisan Partner' is already raising funds with a 'We Beat the Liberals' letter. Some hand shake.
The Senate is broken. The House being filled with nutters is not an excuse to leave it broken. They are all derelict in their duties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:59 PM

15. you are not being kind to our republican overlords lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:52 PM

13. Agreed. We should have done it in 2009 at the latest.

 

We should have rammed through the agenda this country needed. Twice the stimulus, Medicare for all, card check, repealing the trade agreements, sensible tax rates, end of the wars, federal marriage equality and more. We'd be exploding with jobs, the economy would be roaring and things would be much, much better. It really was that easy to fix and still is.

We should have stepped on the Republicans necks and ended Reaganism right on the spot. They never hesitated to do it the other way.

Instead we got none of it. Because they don't want to do any of that. They don't want to help us, they don't give a fuck about anything except robbing us.

I'm so sick of D.C. and just about everyone there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:35 PM

18. two things

One, elections ought to matter, and thanks to the filibuster in the Senate they don't. It is ridiculous that to pass any law it now takes 60 votes. That should have been changed in this deal. Two, the deal left out appellate judges and as we learned today, those are pretty freaking important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:47 PM

19. Pres Obama is thankful regarding district judges...

Obama hopeful Senate filibuster deal will pave way for meaningful action

President Obama praised senators for taking action to reduce obstruction and said he's hopeful it will "pave the way for the Senate to take meaningful action in the days and weeks ahead."

- - snip - -

Obama also thanked congressional leaders for changing Senate rules in an effort to consider consensus district court judicial nominations on a more regular basis.

"After being approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, my judicial nominees have waited more than three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my predecessor, even though the overwhelming majority of my nominees have been confirmed with little, if any, dissent," he said. "These months of unnecessary delay have threatened our judiciary.

"Today’s reforms are a positive step towards a fairer and more efficient system of considering district court nominees, and I urge the Senate to treat all of my judicial nominees in the same spirit."

Full article here: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/obama-hopeful-senate-deal-will-pave-way-for-meaningful-155192.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:54 PM

20. the district judge part is a big deal

undeniably the best part of the deal, but appellate judges alone can take up half a work year. Not including those was a big mistake as today's decision showed. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes two years to get an Obama appointee on that circuit court and that is outlandish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:03 PM

21. Who do you think will get a senate floor vote first for D.C. Circuit - Srinivasan or Halligan?


Srinivasan: Originally nominated on June 11, 2012. Subsequently renominated on January 3, 2013.
Halligan: Originally nominated on September 29, 2010. Subsequently renominated on January 5, 2011, June 11, 2012, September 19, 2012 and January 3, 2013.

Halligan has been waiting over two years already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:09 PM

23. Hard to say

both are young, both likely to be elevated to SCOTUS, and one is a woman and the other a minority. My guess is that Halligan has an edge since her nomination is older.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:06 PM

22. Harry the Weak is my opinion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread