Reid to revisit nuke option in July? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 02:42:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Reid to revisit nuke option in July? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Reid to revisit nuke option in July?  (Read 1142 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

« on: May 17, 2013, 03:26:31 PM »

Filibuster reform should be all or nothing... quit with the stupid nuclear options just to get what you want only when you think it's important.  They should require actual filibusters to be a filibuster, and that'd solve everything.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2013, 03:53:00 PM »

Filibuster reform should be all or nothing... quit with the stupid nuclear options just to get what you want only when you think it's important.  They should require actual filibusters to be a filibuster, and that'd solve everything.

The "nuclear option" isn't a type of filibuster reform, it's a procedural way for Reid to pass real reform (requiring a spoken filibuster, like you suggested) that only requires 51 votes to pass. It's kind of a stupid name, because only in the US Senate would something passing by a majority be called "nuclear."

I understand what the nuclear option is.  But the way to go about not having your nominees filibustered is not to say, "Well, nominees should be an exception to the filibuster rule."
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2013, 02:49:03 AM »

Filibuster reform should be all or nothing... quit with the stupid nuclear options just to get what you want only when you think it's important.  They should require actual filibusters to be a filibuster, and that'd solve everything.

The "nuclear option" isn't a type of filibuster reform, it's a procedural way for Reid to pass real reform (requiring a spoken filibuster, like you suggested) that only requires 51 votes to pass. It's kind of a stupid name, because only in the US Senate would something passing by a majority be called "nuclear."

I understand what the nuclear option is.  But the way to go about not having your nominees filibustered is not to say, "Well, nominees should be an exception to the filibuster rule."

You should tell the Senate Republicans that. I'm sure they would agree with you that Obama's nominees are filibustered four times more often than Bush's because Reid is using the exact same threats that Bill Frist used when Bush was President.

No, it is of course because the Republicans viscerally hate everything about the Democrats, obstruct at all turns as a political strategy, and have no interest in being partners in government.

What exactly is the point that you're trying to make?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2013, 02:52:03 AM »

Filibuster reform should be all or nothing... quit with the stupid nuclear options just to get what you want only when you think it's important.  They should require actual filibusters to be a filibuster, and that'd solve everything.

The "nuclear option" isn't a type of filibuster reform, it's a procedural way for Reid to pass real reform (requiring a spoken filibuster, like you suggested) that only requires 51 votes to pass. It's kind of a stupid name, because only in the US Senate would something passing by a majority be called "nuclear."

I understand what the nuclear option is.  But the way to go about not having your nominees filibustered is not to say, "Well, nominees should be an exception to the filibuster rule."

Why not?  A nominee is fundamentally different from a piece of legislation.  For example, the ability to pressure the majority to allow an amendment to a bill be considered prior to a vote on that bill is one of the most important benefits of the filibuster.

That's a fine argument, but the proper time to make such a change is at the beginning of a session.  Not halfway through when Reid is scared that he can't find the votes to pass a cloture vote.  Yes, the rules need changing, but he's in the position that he's in now because he was too dumb or too scared to do this when the session started.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.