Reply #1

In the discussion thread: Harry Reid Nuking Filibuster Rules [View all]

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:10 PM

BellaKos (117 posts)

1. More good news. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

99 replies	Author	Time	Post
Harry Reid Nuking Filibuster Rules [View all]	trailmonkee	Nov 2012	OP
More good news. n/t	BellaKos	Nov 2012	#1
Reid adheres to that "speak softly but carry a big stick" policy!	LibGranny	Nov 2012	#2
This time it will really, really happen	MannyGoldstein	Nov 2012	#3
This is the first time I recall Reid actually supporting the idea	BlueStreak	Nov 2012	#28
2010: Reid promises filibuster reform	MannyGoldstein	Nov 2012	#40
No, he needs to make sure there are enough votes	railsback	Nov 2012	#59
2010: "And we're going to make some changes in it.”	MannyGoldstein	Nov 2012	#67
4) Require 2/5th opposition to closure.	ieoeja	Nov 2012	#45
I don't see how that would work.	BlueStreak	Nov 2012	#48
You understood me backwards. Not 40 to cut off a filibuster. 40 to maintain a filibuster.	ieoeja	Nov 2012	#53
That's what we have today -- 60 votes required to cut off debate	BlueStreak	Nov 2012	#58
Not at all.	jeff47	Nov 2012	#78
You are making a distinction without a difference	BlueStreak	Nov 2012	#83
No, you are not paying attention to the subtle difference.	jeff47	Nov 2012	#89
So how would that work?	BlueStreak	Nov 2012	#90
.	DURHAM D	Nov 2012	#4
But the House will still be intransigent. Is there anything that can be done about that??	barnabas63	Nov 2012	#5
Senate Holds the Purse Strings...	sally5050	Nov 2012	#8
House never had a fillibuster.	caseymoz	Nov 2012	#24
Incorrect	Dragonfli	Nov 2012	#30
However, I was told this by a source I implicitly trust . . .	caseymoz	Nov 2012	#68
We are a culture ridden with faux-axioms; influenced by a non-objective profit driven media.	Dragonfli	Nov 2012	#91
The House did have a filibuster until the mid-19th century.	NYC Liberal	Nov 2012	#34
As I've now been corrected.	caseymoz	Nov 2012	#69
So, if the House hasn't had a filibuster in over a century, does the Senate need one? n/t	gkhouston	Nov 2012	#85
Nope. Not IMO. Nuke it.	NYC Liberal	Nov 2012	#88
Why Not Nuke It?	RobinA	Nov 2012	#31
Yep.	Wait Wut	Nov 2012	#44
Each new session can totally re-instate any rules that previous sessions "nuked."	ancianita	Nov 2012	#66
Nope, that would be the House. nt	awoke_in_2003	Nov 2012	#46
The House holds those, actually.	Codeine	Nov 2012	#75
Pass these around in the first session...	FailureToCommunicate	Nov 2012	#10
We need bulk pricing.	AllyCat	Nov 2012	#84
It could get worse.	xxqqqzme	Nov 2012	#14
The Senate is key to appointments.	caseymoz	Nov 2012	#22
I wish	Cosmocat	Nov 2012	#61
We'll see.	caseymoz	Nov 2012	#70
can't Obama make recess appointments?	Ashened	Nov 2012	#94
Recess appointments are constitutionally limited.	caseymoz	Nov 2012	#99
The obstruction by Republicans in the Senate was not always clear to people who don't pay close	dflprincess	Nov 2012	#92
Now can we confirm Goodwin Liu to Supreme Court or at least the 9th circuit?	IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ	Nov 2012	#6
And when the Republicans gain control of the Senate	Art_from_Ark	Nov 2012	#37
If these rethugs do ever win the Senate	caveat_imperator	Nov 2012	#43
BINGO	IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ	Nov 2012	#47
glad to here it spoken out loud	JanT	Nov 2012	#7
Can't the Republicans just, well, filibuster this? (nt)	Posteritatis	Nov 2012	#9
No...	Blue Idaho	Nov 2012	#12
+1 nt	ProudProgressiveNow	Nov 2012	#18
Ah! Okay.	Posteritatis	Nov 2012	#20
But can only be done that way at the START of a new Senate term -- i.e. this January.	BlueStreak	Nov 2012	#29
Thank you - I forgot to add that part. nt.	Blue Idaho	Nov 2012	#73
Possibly	kurt_cagle	Nov 2012	#26
What Does He Mean By - "We're Not Going To Do Away With The Filibuster But We're Going To Make....	global1	Nov 2012	#11
He will change the rule so	cosmicone	Nov 2012	#15
Why Not A Simple Majority Of 51?.....	global1	Nov 2012	#32
Without a filibuster, Bork would have been on SCOTUS. n/t	cosmicone	Nov 2012	#64
I don't know why he is so fond of the filibuster but he is. He has said so.	Cleita	Nov 2012	#51
Remember when the Repukes were in charge they whined about any filibuster	K8-EEE	Nov 2012	#17
I'd be fine with them if they actually had to stand up and speak in order to do one. (nt)	Posteritatis	Nov 2012	#21
Or make filibuster like it was in Mr. Smith goes to Washington	99th_Monkey	Nov 2012	#25
Yes, not only is it inconvenient -- it's also highly VISIBLE.	NYC Liberal	Nov 2012	#35
Great point! yes. that too. nt	99th_Monkey	Nov 2012	#52
Yeah a real filibuster would be great!	pam4water	Nov 2012	#42
If you want this to happen - contact Harry Reid ASAP!	Blue Idaho	Nov 2012	#13
imho, the filibuster rules should be suspended until the republicans decide to plan nice	Mr. Sparkle	Nov 2012	#16
Leave the rules alone. Make the repugs stand there and read the fucking phone book....	Hotler	Nov 2012	#71
Bout time.. nt	ProudProgressiveNow	Nov 2012	#19
This is as good news as the Obama victory	CanonRay	Nov 2012	#23
Don't just flap your lips about it, Harry. DO IT.	kestrel91316	Nov 2012	#27
Fuck yeah!!! now lets pass that jobs bill please!!!	and-justice-for-all	Nov 2012	#33
I will believe it when I see it. nm	rhett o rick	Nov 2012	#36
I am sorry to say I share your pessimism whole heartily.	harun	Nov 2012	#96
I am afraid that's what I believe. nm	rhett o rick	Nov 2012	#97
I think that is an excelent decision.	Agnosticsherbet	Nov 2012	#38
Bout time! nt	freedom fighter jh	Nov 2012	#39
Four years late.	tclambert	Nov 2012	#49
Gets hopes up so they can dashed once again XD	pam4water	Nov 2012	#41
Fuck Mitch McConnell and the Turtle he rode in on	jpak	Nov 2012	#50
Reid better be careful.	Beacool	Nov 2012	#54
Not a problem. The Democrats never use these things to our advantage anyway.	yardwork	Nov 2012	#56
Why do you think a Republican majority would keep the filibuster?	jeff47	Nov 2012	#79
I wouldn't have a problem with this	Blasphemer	Nov 2012	#81
Give em hell, Harry.	yardwork	Nov 2012	#55
The filibuster is supposed to allow senators to remain talking on the floor to make their point.	Kablooie	Nov 2012	#57
I hope so, Harry Reid has been WAY too soft.	DividedWeAre	Nov 2012	#60
I hope he follows through.....	Swede Atlanta	Nov 2012	#62
YES!	silverweb	Nov 2012	#63
Can we get rid of the ridiculous invisible hold rule as well?	MessiahRp	Nov 2012	#65
^^ This. You wanna hold something up, you should be able to defend it. n/t	gkhouston	Nov 2012	#86
Well you better get busy! You have lots to do.	lonestarnot	Nov 2012	#72
We need to change the rules to allow Democrats to keep the Repugs from gridlocking us into ...	Nika	Nov 2012	#74
DO IT, Harry and secure your legacy!	wordpix	Nov 2012	#76
No need to try and save it.	D23MIURG23	Nov 2012	#77
if he leaves them a way to use it- they WILL.	BlueMan Votes	Nov 2012	#80
I'll believe it when it actually happens.	Angleae	Nov 2012	#82
It's about fucking time, but I'll believe it when I see it	yurbud	Nov 2012	#87
Good start.	sarcasmo	Nov 2012	#93
Kick!	sarcasmo	Nov 2012	#95
They need to remove the fake filibuster.	ManiacJoe	Nov 2012	#98

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.