Harry Reid ready to go nuclear

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The minority party naturally cries foul when the majority does something to their strategical advantage. No matter who initiates reform, it would be "hypocritical".

But it's more than that.  It's the fact that the Democrats used the tactic to maneuver the whole thing strategically.  The advantage to them was not incidental to the action; it was the whole purpose of the action.  This wasn't about reform because the system is broken.  It was about changing the rules when it's convenient.  If the GOP had done this during the Bush administration, the Democrats on this site would be up in arms, but at least then, the GOP would have been responding to unprecedented action with unprecedented action.  Here, the Democrats responded to precedented action with unprecedented action.

I don't see why it matters. The first step needs to happen at some point, and I'd rather the Democrats not wait for the Republicans to do it.

Virtually everything is strategical to a certain degree.

If there's not real reform, there'll just be something worse and unforeseen that will quickly take its place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The minority party naturally cries foul when the majority does something to their strategical advantage. No matter who initiates reform, it would be "hypocritical".

But it's more than that.  It's the fact that the Democrats used the tactic to maneuver the whole thing strategically.  The advantage to them was not incidental to the action; it was the whole purpose of the action.  This wasn't about reform because the system is broken.  It was about changing the rules when it's convenient.  If the GOP had done this during the Bush administration, the Democrats on this site would be up in arms, but at least then, the GOP would have been responding to unprecedented action with unprecedented action.  Here, the Democrats responded to precedented action with unprecedented action.

The Gang of 14 made there little need to go nuclear. Of course once Obama was elected, filibustering everything was OK again. The Gang of 14 are massive HPs.

More than half the Gang of 14 isn't event there anymore.

Definitely good riddance, but 2 of the 3 remaining Republicans, McCain and Graham, were filibustering everything in sight.

[Franzl]

The minority party naturally cries foul when the majority does something to their strategical advantage. No matter who initiates reform, it would be "hypocritical".

But it's more than that.  It's the fact that the Democrats used the tactic to maneuver the whole thing strategically.  The advantage to them was not incidental to the action; it was the whole purpose of the action.  This wasn't about reform because the system is broken.  It was about changing the rules when it's convenient.  If the GOP had done this during the Bush administration, the Democrats on this site would be up in arms, but at least then, the GOP would have been responding to unprecedented action with unprecedented action.  Here, the Democrats responded to precedented action with unprecedented action.

I don't see why it matters. The first step needs to happen at some point, and I'd rather the Democrats not wait for the Republicans to do it.

Virtually everything is strategical to a certain degree.

If there's not real reform, there'll just be something worse and unforeseen that will quickly take its place.

No offense, but the U.S. legislative system can't get a whole lot worse. What else can the GOP do? Refuse to vote on anything?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The minority party naturally cries foul when the majority does something to their strategical advantage. No matter who initiates reform, it would be "hypocritical".

But it's more than that.  It's the fact that the Democrats used the tactic to maneuver the whole thing strategically.  The advantage to them was not incidental to the action; it was the whole purpose of the action.  This wasn't about reform because the system is broken.  It was about changing the rules when it's convenient.  If the GOP had done this during the Bush administration, the Democrats on this site would be up in arms, but at least then, the GOP would have been responding to unprecedented action with unprecedented action.  Here, the Democrats responded to precedented action with unprecedented action.

I don't see why it matters. The first step needs to happen at some point, and I'd rather the Democrats not wait for the Republicans to do it.

Virtually everything is strategical to a certain degree.

If there's not real reform, there'll just be something worse and unforeseen that will quickly take its place.

No offense, but the U.S. legislative system can't get a whole lot worse. What else can the GOP do? Refuse to vote on anything?

In a year or two or three or ten, when things are crazy weird in Congress, remember this night when I warned the world.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The minority party naturally cries foul when the majority does something to their strategical advantage. No matter who initiates reform, it would be "hypocritical".

But it's more than that.  It's the fact that the Democrats used the tactic to maneuver the whole thing strategically.  The advantage to them was not incidental to the action; it was the whole purpose of the action.  This wasn't about reform because the system is broken.  It was about changing the rules when it's convenient.  If the GOP had done this during the Bush administration, the Democrats on this site would be up in arms, but at least then, the GOP would have been responding to unprecedented action with unprecedented action.  Here, the Democrats responded to precedented action with unprecedented action.

I don't see why it matters. The first step needs to happen at some point, and I'd rather the Democrats not wait for the Republicans to do it.

Virtually everything is strategical to a certain degree.

If there's not real reform, there'll just be something worse and unforeseen that will quickly take its place.

No offense, but the U.S. legislative system can't get a whole lot worse. What else can the GOP do? Refuse to vote on anything?

In a year or two or three or ten, when things are crazy weird in Congress, remember this night when I warned the world.

You mean like the debt ceiling blackmail? The Republican party already took us down the rabbit hole.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah.. literally the worst thing the GOP can do is ruin the global economy while having a temper tantrum.  And if they do that, I think the reaction would actually be violent and it'd be a long time before the GOP got anywhere near power again.

Not only would Americans be livid... the entire world would be extremely pissed off at us.

Part of me kinda wants it.  The same part that roots for the bad guy in movies (luckily it's not the majority of me)

[Meeker]

Even if you believe there are negative consequences to this change, I don't understand how one could feel those consequences outweigh the positive benefits. Nearly a hundred positions in the federal judiciary are vacant, and large sections of the federal government are being run by Bush appointees or acting leaders. That causes real problems for the functioning of the government, and those problems were only going to grow as the years went on. Something had to be done, and Senate Republicans have shown time after time that the "deals" brokered with them are meaningless a few weeks after they're agreed to. I don't really see how Reid had any other option.

Things will now go back to the way they were 40-50 years ago when nominees were only blocked if they were unqualified. This is really a move to restore the way the Senate traditionally functioned.

[Brittain33]

Inks, right now no legislation is being passed and multiple agencies are blocked from functioning by vacancies, in addition to the judicial emergency. A Supreme Court nomination would have been an impasse, too.

Let us know specifically how things will get worse. Sam Spade-ish warnings just make it look like you don't really have any idea, but just want to insist you're right that somehow Dems messed up. That isn't good enough.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If there's not real reform, there'll just be something worse and unforeseen that will quickly take its place.

Well, seeing as how you seem to feel that total elimination of the filibuster would be worse, bad is good.

[The Mikado]

Getting rid of the filibuster in general (the road this puts us on) is the most overdue fix to our system of government.  The filibuster should have been killed by the Congress back during the Civil War when the Southern senators were absent.  It's utter insanity that it exists today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Getting rid of the filibuster in general (the road this puts us on) is the most overdue fix to our system of government.

I'd say the second, after nonpartisan redistricting.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, right now no legislation is being passed and multiple agencies are blocked from functioning by vacancies, in addition to the judicial emergency. A Supreme Court nomination would have been an impasse, too.

Let us know specifically how things will get worse. Sam Spade-ish warnings just make it look like you don't really have any idea, but just want to insist you're right that somehow Dems messed up. That isn't good enough.

What "judicial emergency"?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If there's not real reform, there'll just be something worse and unforeseen that will quickly take its place.

Well, seeing as how you seem to feel that total elimination of the filibuster would be worse, bad is good.

No... I've argued FOR elimination of the filibuster (at least procedurally... if you're going to do it, make it a real filibuster).

[SteveRogers]

Inks, right now no legislation is being passed and multiple agencies are blocked from functioning by vacancies, in addition to the judicial emergency. A Supreme Court nomination would have been an impasse, too.

Let us know specifically how things will get worse. Sam Spade-ish warnings just make it look like you don't really have any idea, but just want to insist you're right that somehow Dems messed up. That isn't good enough.

What "judicial emergency"?

Oh, you know, these judicial emergencies as defined by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies/JudicialEmergencies.aspx

Basically various Circuit Courts and District Courts are currently overloaded with a backlog of hundreds or even thousands of judicial filings because there aren't enough judges on the bench to handle the caseload. This wasn't an abstract debate over the President's right to make appointments. This was a necessity. The country needs judges.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The main problem is that the Republicans aren't even using real filibusters. A real filibuster like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Wendy Davis is one thing. The Republicans are basically just abusing procedural rules to require a de facto 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. It's absurd to act like nothing should be done about that. The fact it took several years is proof that folks were reluctant, which makes sense as the filibuster is such a Senate institution, but the Republicans have left no choice. You might as well amend the rules to require 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate if you're going to keep the "filibuster" rules in place as before since they're effectively the same thing.

[Torie]

Inks, right now no legislation is being passed and multiple agencies are blocked from functioning by vacancies, in addition to the judicial emergency. A Supreme Court nomination would have been an impasse, too.

Let us know specifically how things will get worse. Sam Spade-ish warnings just make it look like you don't really have any idea, but just want to insist you're right that somehow Dems messed up. That isn't good enough.

Given the GOP House, the lack of legislation will not change whatever the filibuster rule (the Senate Pubs, some of them, play ball more with the Dems than the House Pubs do anyway). If the Dems controlled the House, Reid might have killed the filibuster in all its aspects. Instead, he just changed it in circumstances where the House is not in play. In any event, the Pubs would be insane not to kill it all off if they get the trifecta in 2016. And that would be grand. That way, the party in power gets to do its thing, and be held responsible for it in ensuing elections, as opposed to this cf where nobody is responsible for anything, and it is just a finger pointing game as to who is responsible for gridlock, and who is being unreasonable in not compromising. What a concept!

Gosh, I wish we had a parliamentary system, rendering this all moot. The US system of government, despite claims to the contrary, is not the most perfect system known to man, inspired by divine providence suffusing and inspiring and guiding the minds of our Founders. Who knew?

[bullmoose88]

Heresy Torie.  How dare you blaspheme against the holy founders like that. Stay right there, the re-educators will be with you shortly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, right now no legislation is being passed and multiple agencies are blocked from functioning by vacancies, in addition to the judicial emergency. A Supreme Court nomination would have been an impasse, too.

Let us know specifically how things will get worse. Sam Spade-ish warnings just make it look like you don't really have any idea, but just want to insist you're right that somehow Dems messed up. That isn't good enough.

What "judicial emergency"?

Oh, you know, these judicial emergencies as defined by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies/JudicialEmergencies.aspx

Basically various Circuit Courts and District Courts are currently overloaded with a backlog of hundreds or even thousands of judicial filings because there aren't enough judges on the bench to handle the caseload. This wasn't an abstract debate over the President's right to make appointments. This was a necessity. The country needs judges.

I'm aware we need judges. I just hadn't heard that term used before. Calm down...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Heresy Torie.  How dare you blaspheme against the holy founders like that. Stay right there, the re-educators will be with you shortly.

The GOP's acting like the Founders were some infallible geniuses is one of the most annoying things in the world.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Gosh, I wish we had a parliamentary system, rendering this all moot.

[Link]

Gosh, I wish we had a parliamentary system, rendering this all moot.

If we had a parliamentary system we wouldn't have the ridiculous Republican presidential primaries.  The party insiders would pick someone half way sensible without the absurd circus.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Gosh, I wish we had a parliamentary system, rendering this all moot.

If we had a parliamentary system we wouldn't have the ridiculous Republican presidential primaries.  The party insiders would pick someone half way sensible without the absurd circus.

In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister would probably be different than the President...

[Person Man]

If they do this they better fill every single vacancy ASAP because you know the Republicans will abuse the new rules if they get a simple majority.  They have already abused the filibuster.

I'm philosophically okay with presidential appointments not needing cloture, but are we okay with  a 51/49 vote for medicaid repeal or single payer enactment?

Back when California was a legislative dystopia, one of the arguments liberals made against this was that philosophically we should be invested in the idea of good governance, at least more so than the Republicans are. The scorched earth tactics Republicans have been using now have enabled them to create the perception (and reality) that Washington is broken and government sucks, which plays right into their platform/ideology.

In other words it's still worth it to change the rules to ensure majoritarian rule, as it will make government work better and makes it clearer which party is responsible for policy. Republicans really want to privatize Social Security? Let them try to pass that with 51 votes and see how it plays electorally.

Exactly. This is where the direction where Democracy in this country is going anyway. You vote for clear concrete choices. Those choices are assured to implement their policies and then you vote next election whether to expand, continue, modify or cancel those policies. There's no more voting for someone who is simply a good administrator  (what Dukakis campaigned on and what Clinton was corned into doing for 7 years) or implementing over bargained for policies that have poison pills that allow policies to be sabotaged to the point it becomes impractical to implement them or policies that people voted for but never were voted for in Congress (such as carbon taxes and canceling or selling Social Security).

No longer will it take 20 years to finish a reform effort or a war and no longer will there be issues that will be allowed to be used over and over again for decades. Then again, I wonder what the parties will do once they implement something that was a centerpiece of their platform and it either failing or being ruled illegal.  (i.e. What would have Democrats have done if the ACA is ruled unconstitutional. There is still a case moving through the courts as we speak on whether the funding for the law is legal.)

[politicallefty]

Given the GOP House, the lack of legislation will not change whatever the filibuster rule (the Senate Pubs, some of them, play ball more with the Dems than the House Pubs do anyway). If the Dems controlled the House, Reid might have killed the filibuster in all its aspects. Instead, he just changed it in circumstances where the House is not in play. In any event, the Pubs would be insane not to kill it all off if they get the trifecta in 2016. And that would be grand. That way, the party in power gets to do its thing, and be held responsible for it in ensuing elections, as opposed to this cf where nobody is responsible for anything, and it is just a finger pointing game as to who is responsible for gridlock, and who is being unreasonable in not compromising. What a concept!

Gosh, I wish we had a parliamentary system, rendering this all moot. The US system of government, despite claims to the contrary, is not the most perfect system known to man, inspired by divine providence suffusing and inspiring and guiding the minds of our Founders. Who knew?

I am in complete agreement with you. If either party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the filibuster should die immediately. If President Hillary Clinton wants to pass single-payer healthcare or if President Chris Christie wants to push through privatization of Social Security and/or Medicare, then so be it. They should and would ultimately be held accountable by the voters. I'm a firm believer that elections have consequences.

I'm also 100% in agreement with you that the US would be far better off with a parliamentary system. Party leadership in a parliamentary system tends not to cave to an extremist base, not to mention that the party in power is completely accountable for its actions or lack of action.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Given the GOP House, the lack of legislation will not change whatever the filibuster rule (the Senate Pubs, some of them, play ball more with the Dems than the House Pubs do anyway). If the Dems controlled the House, Reid might have killed the filibuster in all its aspects. Instead, he just changed it in circumstances where the House is not in play. In any event, the Pubs would be insane not to kill it all off if they get the trifecta in 2016. And that would be grand. That way, the party in power gets to do its thing, and be held responsible for it in ensuing elections, as opposed to this cf where nobody is responsible for anything, and it is just a finger pointing game as to who is responsible for gridlock, and who is being unreasonable in not compromising. What a concept!

Gosh, I wish we had a parliamentary system, rendering this all moot. The US system of government, despite claims to the contrary, is not the most perfect system known to man, inspired by divine providence suffusing and inspiring and guiding the minds of our Founders. Who knew?

I am in complete agreement with you. If either party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the filibuster should die immediately. If President Hillary Clinton wants to pass single-payer healthcare or if President Chris Christie wants to push through privatization of Social Security and/or Medicare, then so be it. They should and would ultimately be held accountable by the voters. I'm a firm believer that elections have consequences.

I'm also 100% in agreement with you that the US would be far better off with a parliamentary system. Party leadership in a parliamentary system tends not to cave to an extremist base, not to mention that the party in power is completely accountable for its actions or lack of action.

Very true.