Reply #11

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

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:19 PM

global1 (10,585 posts)

11. What Does He Mean By - "We're Not Going To Do Away With The Filibuster But We're Going To Make....

the Senate a more meaningful place"?

That sounds like weasel words to me. Why wouldn't you want to do away with the filibuster? Why even give the Repugs an inch of space to abuse it?

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.