Reid trying to stop filibusters now that THEY still control the Senate
-
So you don't like it the way it is.
**************************
Didn't say any such thing.
**************************
You think it's abused.
*************************
I know it's been abused. The most recent, was the Independent socialist
Bernard whatshisname from Vermont.
**************************
You want to see it changed.
**************************
I never said any such thing, again. Your twisting and dishonest paraphrasing of other's posts is really getting old.
**************************
And also, it's a huge shame that they want to change it.
**************************
NO. I DON'T WANT THE DEMS, WHO LOVED THE FILIBUSTER WHEN THEY WERE A MINORITY,
WANT TO GET RID OF IT NOW OR CHANGE IT, TO KEEP THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS FROM USING IT LIKE THE DEMS HAVE USED IT.
THEN, I DON'T WANT THEM TO BRING IT BACK AGAIN IN A LATER LAME DUCK SESSION,
WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO BE A MINORITY AGAIN, AND CHANGING THE RULES TO THEIR BENEFIT.
**************************
The proposed changes aren't even all that major. Do you know what they are?
***************************
IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE POINT IS, THE FREAKIN DEMS DIDN'T WANT THOSE CHANGES
WHEN THEY WERE A MINORITY, BUT NOW, THEY WANT TO MAKE CHANGES THAT WILL AFFECT
THE REPUBLICANS USE OF IT.
You are hopeless. You HAVE to be inventing points that aren't there on purpose, surely.
Either that... or........ we've warped your psyche by refusing to be manipulated Obamao style.
-
Didn't conservatives threaten the same thing a few years ago when they were still in power? Yeah, with one of the Supreme court nominees I think.
-
Threaten to change the filibuster rules? I don't remember. I don't want either party
changing everything everytime they are in power. The leftist Dems would hold up every single
nominee on the basis of idealogy FAR freakin more than the Reps ever would, if they ever have.
I just think, that they should establish the way it should be, respect it, not abuse it,
and keep it the same freakin way for both parties.
-
Cal, you do understand that the Republicans just used the filibuster more than it's ever been used, and to oppose the types of things that it's never been used to oppose before, right?
Would you like to see a graphic?
So it makes it kind of comical when you say things like, "The leftist Dems would hold up every single nominee on the basis of idealogy FAR freakin more than the Reps ever would, if they ever have."
Well, the Republican are guilty of what you just claimed the Democrats would be guilty of ...in the reality you've created in your head. No fair person would ever watch how much the filibuster has been used by Republicans over the last few years and then claim that the real problem is the idea that Democrats might use it in the future.
Again, let me know what part of this proposal you think is a bad idea. I think they're all good ideas that restore sanity to the process.
"The key proposals would reform the practice of "secret holds," which let a single lawmaker delay even the most noncontroversial provisions; allow for hundreds of junior nominees to agencies to be confirmed without a floor vote, rather than be slowed by the logjam of the more than 1,000 positions that now require full Senate votes; and forbid the minority to force Senate clerks to read full legislative amendments, a tactic rarely used but one that Republicans temporarily forced during the 2009 health-care debate."
And since this is going to pass with Republican votes, too, maybe it's time to tone down your hysterical nonsense.
-
Stop being a leftist weinie, Heck.
It doesn't matter how many times it's been used. The Republicans never used to gain
leverage to take away my Constitutional rights like the 2nd Amendment.
Please stop being a dumbass, and please stop making every issue a different issue, because
you went and looked up some other info and want to raise THAT issue instead, because
you DO have THAT information to refute ...
here. Just read and start being an honest American, instead of what you are tying to be...
Again, the issue of my thread is NOT how many times it's used. It's how it's used, and how the Dems
are wanting to change the rules, temporarily as it ends up, for their own power to control things.
******************************************************
Last night the U.S. Senate leaders agreed to adjourn the first legislative day of the 112th Congress, without a vote to change the rules to silence outspoken pro-gun advocates.
This effectively ended the chances for anti-gun Obamacrats to prevent conservative heroes like Senator Tom Coburn and Rand Paul from using all the procedural tools at their disposal to fight for your right to keep and bear arms.
Your actions -- calls and e-mails -- made the difference. Thank you!
Because of your activism, gun rights advocates in the Senate can still use the filibuster to block anti-gun legislation.
Sources on Capitol Hill tell me that negotiations are still on going regarding “tinkering” with the rules, but the filibuster should remain intact. Rest assured, I will keep you informed of any future attempts to move the goal posts in the U.S. Senate.
While this is a small victory, it is a victory nonetheless.
Thank you for stepping up and making your voice heard.
For liberty,
Dudley Brown
Last night the U.S. Senate leaders agreed to adjourn the first legislative day of the 112th Congress, without a vote to change the rules to silence outspoken pro-gun advocates.
This effectively ended the chances for anti-gun Obamacrats to prevent conservative heroes like Senator Tom Coburn and Rand Paul from using all the procedural tools at their disposal to fight for your right to keep and bear arms.
Your actions -- calls and e-mails -- made the difference. Thank you!
Because of your activism, gun rights advocates in the Senate can still use the filibuster to block anti-gun legislation.
Sources on Capitol Hill tell me that negotiations are still on going regarding “tinkering” with the rules, but the filibuster should remain intact. Rest assured, I will keep you informed of any future attempts to move the goal posts in the U.S. Senate.
While this is a small victory, it is a victory nonetheless.
Thank you for stepping up and making your voice heard.
For liberty,
Dudley Brown
-
Cal, you do understand that the Republicans just used the filibuster more than it's ever been used, and to oppose the types of things that it's never been used to oppose before, right?
Would you like to see a graphic?
So it makes it kind of comical when you say things like, "The leftist Dems would hold up every single nominee on the basis of idealogy FAR freakin more than the Reps ever would, if they ever have."
Well, the Republican are guilty of what you just claimed the Democrats would be guilty of ...in the reality you've created in your head. No fair person would ever watch how much the filibuster has been used by Republicans over the last few years and then claim that the real problem is the idea that Democrats might use it in the future.
Again, let me know what part of this proposal you think is a bad idea. I think they're all good ideas that restore sanity to the process.
"The key proposals would reform the practice of "secret holds," which let a single lawmaker delay even the most noncontroversial provisions; allow for hundreds of junior nominees to agencies to be confirmed without a floor vote, rather than be slowed by the logjam of the more than 1,000 positions that now require full Senate votes; and forbid the minority to force Senate clerks to read full legislative amendments, a tactic rarely used but one that Republicans temporarily forced during the 2009 health-care debate."
And since this is going to pass with Republican votes, too, maybe it's time to tone down your hysterical nonsense.
Cal, you do understand that the Republicans just used the filibuster more than it's ever been used, and to oppose the types of things that it's never been used to oppose before, right?
Thank God they can use it or we would all be up the creek without a paddle with all of your favorite socialist/marxist laws.
-
Heck is a fraud. He keeps coming on here, and changing subjects faster than he can think.
The issue never was about how many Republicans used it. And it never was about how I don't like
the filibuster, or do like the filibuster. It would depend on why it was being used.
In this case, it is a dishonest (nothing new) attempt to change the FREAKIN RULES,
by Reid, to stop it from being used.
So, Reps use it alot? Fine. Dems use it a lot? Fine. Unless some jackwagon is using it for the wrong reasons.
And, Heck, OF COURSE the Reps used it a lot. Obamao, REid and Pelosi shut the Reps out of all pending legislation input.
Obamao even SAID they have to sit in the back of the bus. I'm sure Heck calls that "bi-partisan"... @@
Their arrogance was out of control, and the American people slapped that crap down at the midterm elections,
specifically, as Heck would put it, but Pelosi DID, "We have to pass the hc bill so we can find out what's in it"
So, the POINT is, Reid manipulating the rules that he likes unless he wants them quickly changed for his own benefit.
Stick to the point, Heck. For once.
-
So Reid and Mitch McConnell just agreed to "manipulating the rules" for the benefit of liberals. Basically, they agreed to everything I posted above.
I guess Mitch McConnell is in on this liberal plot too.
-
Where do you get they agreed on manipulating the rules?
They agreed to adjourn without it.
You are very strange, making stuff up to try to earn some phoney point.
-
I guess this is what you think you are talking about. I was talking about filibuster rules, Heck.
My God, Heck, are you completely lost on keeping to a subject?
But your conclusion is bogus, as usual, the rules tweaks do not benefit liberals, they benefit the Senate:
What Reid WANTED TO DO, is the CHANGE THE FILIBUSTER RULES TO STOP pro-gun Reps from speaking out,
and if necessary, PROTECTING OUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Man, how DO you find your toothbrush every morning?
******************************
<H1 class=gl_headline>Senate to nix secret holds but keep filibuster rules intact</H1>From NBC's Ken Strickland
In an agreement reached between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, the world's most deliberative body will not change its rules on the filibuster after all.
A group of mostly freshmen senators were denied an opportunity to make changes with only a simple majority. They argue that the Senate rules allow that on the first day of a new session, the body may amend its rules with only 51 'yeas' instead of the 67 normally required. Democrats refer to this as "the constitutional option."
But Senate leaders have agreed not to take what many Republicans and some Democrats believe would be too drastic a step.
"Senator McConnell and I both believe that our reverence for this institution must always be more important than party," Reid said in a written statement. "And as part of this compromise, we have agreed that I won't force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate - that is, the so-called 'constitutional option.'"
The leaders agreed to five things that Reid said will lead to "a healthier Senate." Three of the changes are concrete, while the remaining two are more aspirational.
The first three:
1. Eliminating "secret holds," which can delay a nomination or legislation
2. Eliminating the tactic of forcing the Senate clerk of reading of an amendment aloud if it has already been publicly available for 72 hours
3. Creating legislation to exempt about 1/3 of all presidential nominations from the Senate confirmation process. These would primarily be low-level nominations for positions not directly involved with policy decisions.
In the remaining two:
4. Republican Leader McConnell agreed that he too would not try to change the Senate rules with the constitutional option "in this congress or the next Congress."
5. McConnell agreed to reduce his use of the filibuster on motions that bring the bills to the floor for debate. (There was no agreement on the frequency of filibusting bills before passage.) And Reid agreed to reduce his practice of "filling the tree," which blocks Republicans from offering amendments.
The first two items in the agreement will be codified with votes later today, which are expected to pass.
There will also be votes on the more dramatic changes to the filibuster rules that a small band of Democrats initially sought, but they will be subjected to a threshold of 67 votes (if all Senators are present), and are not expected to pass.
-
I guess this is what you think you are talking about. I was talking about filibuster rules, Heck.
My God, Heck, are you completely lost on keeping to a subject?
But your conclusion is bogus, as usual, the rules tweaks do not benefit liberals, they benefit the Senate:
What Reid WANTED TO DO, is the CHANGE THE FILIBUSTER RULES TO STOP pro-gun Reps from speaking out,
and if necessary, PROTECTING OUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Man, how DO you find your toothbrush every morning?
******************************
<H1 class=gl_headline>Senate to nix secret holds but keep filibuster rules intact</H1><DIV class=postBody><DIV class=postText><DIV class="vine-p p-content_ArticleText clearfix"><DIV class=articleText>From NBC's Ken Strickland
In an agreement reached between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, the world's most deliberative body will not change its rules on the filibuster after all.
A group of mostly freshmen senators were denied an opportunity to make changes with only a simple majority. They argue that the Senate rules allow that on the first day of a new session, the body may amend its rules with only 51 'yeas' instead of the 67 normally required. Democrats refer to this as "the constitutional option."
But Senate leaders have agreed not to take what many Republicans and some Democrats believe would be too drastic a step.
"Senator McConnell and I both believe that our reverence for this institution must always be more important than party," Reid said in a written statement. "And as part of this compromise, we have agreed that I won't force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate - that is, the so-called 'constitutional option.'"
The leaders agreed to five things that Reid said will lead to "a healthier Senate." Three of the changes are concrete, while the remaining two are more aspirational.
The first three:
1. Eliminating "secret holds," which can delay a nomination or legislation
2. Eliminating the tactic of forcing the Senate clerk of reading of an amendment aloud if it has already been publicly available for 72 hours
3. Creating legislation to exempt about 1/3 of all presidential nominations from the Senate confirmation process. These would primarily be low-level nominations for positions not directly involved with policy decisions.
In the remaining two:
4. Republican Leader McConnell agreed that he too would not try to change the Senate rules with the constitutional option "in this congress or the next Congress."
5. McConnell agreed to reduce his use of the filibuster on
-
**********************
SO, I was concerned, rightly so, about Reid's attempt to change the rules on the FREAKIN FILIBUSTER.
Then you childishly say that Mcconnell and Reid agreed to change the filibuster rules to benefit liberals.
The rule tweaks NOT related to filibusters, are NOT the subject. What the HECK is wrong with you?
********************************
In an agreement reached between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, the world's most deliberative body will not change its rules on the filibuster after all.
***********************
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login