DCBob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #63 |
| 65. Interesting, I didnt know that. However, one caveat from your article.. |
|
"Many people, including Udall himself, believe this has to happen at the beginning of a new Congress. If it doesn't happen at the beginning of a new Congress, then Congress is considered to have acquiesced to the previous Congress's rules, and a filibuster against further rule changes wouldn't interrupt the constitutional right to determine the rules."
That's a mouthful.
|
| -Reid considering rule change to remove 60 vote requirement to proceed on legislation. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:01 AM |
#0 |
 -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 07:07 AM |
#1 |
 -
What if Republicans think they can get the majority in 2013? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:10 AM |
#3 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 07:28 AM |
#9 |
| -
13 is not an election year |
Gman |
Dec-04-11 07:31 AM |
#11 |
 -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 07:35 AM |
#12 |
| -
Then why did you write "every Pub like usual will block it"?? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:05 AM |
#41 |
| -
Why wouldn't they wait until the new session when their majority alone could carry the day? |
TheKentuckian |
Dec-04-11 10:46 AM |
#78 |
| -
They'll change the rule, and hopefully we'll get out the vote and blow their minds. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:46 AM |
#16 |
| -
I hope you meant Senator Reid lost his leadership position and not his Senate seat |
PuffedMica |
Dec-04-11 07:11 AM |
#4 |
| -
Isn't it funny how the Republicans always get Senate Leaders from the reddest of the red states? |
stillwaiting |
Dec-04-11 07:20 AM |
#7 |
| -
A very illuminating point. |
RUMMYisFROSTED |
Dec-04-11 07:49 AM |
#18 |
| -
That is somewhat misleading |
dsc |
Dec-04-11 10:54 AM |
#82 |
| -
That makes no sense |
Gman |
Dec-04-11 07:29 AM |
#10 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 08:00 AM |
#24 |
| -
Why do you not accuse Republicans of spinelessness too? |
treestar |
Dec-04-11 09:53 AM |
#53 |
| -
Probably because they don't NEED it - they pass their agenda with tiny majorities. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 11:04 AM |
#83 |
| -
Like when? |
treestar |
Dec-04-11 11:12 AM |
#86 |
| -
It seems to me that you admire them for their obstructionism and detest Dems for being human. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:25 PM |
#98 |
| -
President Obama should take this straight to the voters |
PuffedMica |
Dec-04-11 07:09 AM |
#2 |
| -
Yes, I hope that happens. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:14 AM |
#5 |
| -
That is true and good, but his 'bully pulpit' talks sound more like concession speeches. |
Huey P. Long |
Dec-04-11 11:40 AM |
#90 |
| -
The timing of this is very odd. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 07:17 AM |
#6 |
| -
The timing is perfect. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:21 AM |
#8 |
| -
Perfect, I suppose, if you're a fan of RW policy. I'm not, so I find it suspect. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 07:36 AM |
#13 |
| -
Calling for the rich to pay their fair share is RW policies? |
SkyDaddy7 |
Dec-04-11 08:24 AM |
#29 |
| -
For 3 years the 'dems' kissed republican ass. Now, at the 11th hour, |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:20 AM |
#61 |
| -
I vote for the latter - n/t |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-04-11 10:24 AM |
#66 |
| -
The Republicans will only have a victory if their trolls are able to convince people... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:41 AM |
#77 |
| -
LOL. 1001 lame, transparent excuses. In case you haven't noticed, people are out in the streets, |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:46 AM |
#79 |
| -
You think Reid is a "fan of RW policy" ?? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:37 AM |
#31 |
| -
It only makes sense if they think the GOP will have a victory or something. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:40 AM |
#33 |
| -
Agreed. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:41 AM |
#34 |
| -
+1 |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:44 AM |
#36 |
| -
Really? You believe Reid has been a fighter? |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:21 AM |
#64 |
| -
At times.. but he certainly isnt a fan RW policy. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:52 AM |
#81 |
| -
Actions speak louder than words. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 11:06 AM |
#84 |
| -
You realize that this exposes the alleged "republican obstruction" as the LIE it is. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:50 AM |
#80 |
| -
Hahaha, republican obstructionism, completely given a pass by some in the left. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:10 PM |
#96 |
| -
They were able to change the rules but chose not to. That's tacit approval bordering collusion. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 06:53 PM |
#99 |
| -
The rules aren't going to be changed. They mention this every few months because the Republicans... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:28 PM |
#102 |
| -
I agree. A lot of Democrats are going to favor this. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:42 AM |
#15 |
| -
Yes.. this may be the best chance to get this stupid rule changed. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:38 AM |
#32 |
| -
It's a good time, but I don't think the GOPers will do it, because we can get 3 pickups... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:42 AM |
#35 |
| -
Yeah, you are probably right. I think the Dems are ready to do it but probably not enough Rs. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:44 AM |
#37 |
| -
McCain, when not addlebrained, is a big rules gamer. Remember the Gang of 14 redux? |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:52 AM |
#38 |
| -
I'm not sure how this can only be ammo used against Reid or the Democrats. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:41 AM |
#14 |
| -
No, if they were going to change it, it should have happened in 2008. But then they wouldn't |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:26 AM |
#68 |
| -
more theater. |
piratefish08 |
Dec-04-11 07:47 AM |
#17 |
| -
I think this is mostly posturing, I'd like to be wrong, but yeah. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:50 AM |
#19 |
| -
harry, you're about 3 years late. |
spanone |
Dec-04-11 07:52 AM |
#20 |
| -
My thoughts exacxtly. |
bvar22 |
Dec-04-11 10:25 AM |
#67 |
| -
Imho, the biggest mistake Reid and other Senate Dems made was not doing this in '09. |
RUMMYisFROSTED |
Dec-04-11 07:52 AM |
#21 |
| -
I want to know why it wasn't done in '09 or '10. I want to sit down and ask them why. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:55 AM |
#22 |
| -
They won't change it this year, either. |
Frank Jameson |
Dec-04-11 08:04 AM |
#26 |
| -
Oh, I agree with you. I think it's posturing as I said. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:06 AM |
#27 |
| -
Me too. There were some Democrats against the change, I think. |
northoftheborder |
Dec-04-11 09:04 AM |
#40 |
| -
They need 2/3 to make a permanent rule change. They would never got that in 09. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:19 AM |
#43 |
| -
The "nuclear option" has never happened, it's always been threatened, or used minimially. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:48 AM |
#50 |
| -
these arcane complex Senate rules are really hard to understand., |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:17 AM |
#60 |
| -
On the first day of a new senate, it takes only 51 votes to |
Recovered Repug |
Dec-04-11 11:11 AM |
#85 |
| -
Yes, I stand corrected. I wasnt aware of that possibility. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 11:21 AM |
#88 |
| -
Muddy the waters much? |
RUMMYisFROSTED |
Dec-04-11 03:36 PM |
#91 |
| -
New rules at the beginning of the term can be changed with 51 votes. |
grantcart |
Dec-04-11 05:07 PM |
#93 |
| -
Be careful what you wish for.. you just might get it... |
Cid_B |
Dec-04-11 07:59 AM |
#23 |
| -
We can get FL, Mass. and AZ. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:00 AM |
#25 |
| -
I agree... but I don't think they'd want it even if they could |
Cid_B |
Dec-04-11 08:29 AM |
#30 |
| -
How is this any different from the 'Nuke Option' from the Early Bush years? |
apnu |
Dec-04-11 08:10 AM |
#28 |
| -
I think the "nuclear option" can only be used on a case by case basis... |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:56 AM |
#39 |
| -
Nah, it can be used anywhere, no one wants to make it go to the Supreme Court. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:03 AM |
#57 |
| -
but I think it would require a new vote every time a new motion or bill is brought forward. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:13 AM |
#58 |
| -
No, here's how you use it to do a full rule change with 51 votes: |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:20 AM |
#63 |
| -
Interesting, I didnt know that. However, one caveat from your article.. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:23 AM |
#65 |
| -
Indeed, that's why the nuclear option is very iffy, it can be arbitrary. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:29 AM |
#71 |
| -
Messy stuff. Thats why I dont agree with those who think invoking the N.O. is the simple solution. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:33 AM |
#73 |
| -
Agree. If Bush did it, then we certainly shouldn't, Bush didn't care about rule of law. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:37 AM |
#75 |
| -
yes, I wish that would thappen. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:41 AM |
#76 |
| -
Ah yes, rather than doing the hard work of fighting for legislation, let's hamstring the Democrats |
MadHound |
Dec-04-11 09:17 AM |
#42 |
| -
The alternative is a hopelessly deadlocked congress. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:21 AM |
#44 |
| -
President still has veto. This basically says "we pass laws that the President can't veto." |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:51 AM |
#52 |
| -
That is a lie: " requirement that legislation get 60 Senate votes to pass." 51 votes are needed |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 09:27 AM |
#45 |
| -
Are you talking about the nuclear option? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:30 AM |
#46 |
| -
no, he doesn't understand that fillibusters don't work like in the movies. |
dionysus |
Dec-04-11 09:51 AM |
#51 |
| -
No. All Senator Reid needs to do is withdraw his "two-track Senate debate" rule. |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 05:14 PM |
#94 |
| -
It's not "his" rule. It's been around for awhile. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:08 PM |
#95 |
| -
The "dual tracking" is what gives Republicans the power to stop progressive legislation ..... |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 07:07 PM |
#100 |
| -
*yawn* You know, I'll give you this one. I fully advocate this. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:25 PM |
#101 |
| -
The Democratic Senate response to Republican obstructionism just hasn't worked out very well. |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 07:40 PM |
#103 |
| -
So, a question on filibusters turns into a question on eliminating the dual track. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:02 PM |
#104 |
| -
No. It's eliminating both. No .... a 20 minute filibuster would last 20 minutes, not hours. |
Better Believe It |
Dec-05-11 04:35 PM |
#105 |
| -
Reid actually did invoke the nuclear option recently.. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:37 AM |
#49 |
| -
Ahh, I didn't see your post. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:53 AM |
#54 |
| -
Wow, you have done a complete 180 on this, it's clear to me that your opinion does not go further... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:58 AM |
#55 |
| -
Reid's timing is certainly suspect.. |
Fumesucker |
Dec-04-11 10:27 AM |
#70 |
| -
It comes up every 6 months! |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:35 AM |
#74 |
| -
It is not a lie. 60 votes for cloture is required before they can vote on the bill.. |
emulatorloo |
Dec-04-11 04:58 PM |
#92 |
| -
Going nowhere fast |
SoCalDem |
Dec-04-11 09:34 AM |
#47 |
| -
a day late and a dollar short |
boston bean |
Dec-04-11 09:36 AM |
#48 |
| -
Disingenuous. NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION prevents a simple Senate majority of 51 votes |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 10:03 AM |
#56 |
| -
The Constitution endows the Standing Rules of the United States Senate with all the power. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:13 AM |
#59 |
| -
however... |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 10:26 AM |
#69 |
| -
Yeah, and Bush did it 100s of times during his Presidency. Do we want a Bush-eqsue Presidency... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:32 AM |
#72 |
| -
I'm sure you know that, as pResident, Bush could not |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 11:21 AM |
#87 |
| -
Are you sure if involked, the nuclear option would be permanent? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:20 AM |
#62 |
| -
How To End the Filibuster Forever |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 11:29 AM |
#89 |
| -
Here's why Republican Obstructionism needs to fucking end: |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:18 PM |
#97 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread