I didn't see it as gloating. The Republicans, to their credit, never take their foot off the gas and it's long past time the Democrats and Obama went at them with equal ferocity.
Breaking News: Eric Cantor says House GOP won't back bill
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
I didn't see it as gloating. The Republicans, to their credit, never take their foot off the gas and it's long past time the Democrats and Obama went at them with equal ferocity.
Reid needs 51 votes to re-structure how the filibuster works in the Senate. It's looking good that he can get that number from within his conference. I think it's more likely than not that there will be filibuster reform when the new Congress begins. Without it, the President will be in the same situation he was in his first term with legislation and nominations just sitting there. Younger Senators as well as Reid aren't feeling that kind of gridlock.
Gloating is the wrong word, it should be goading, I will amend that, but certain things just didn't need to be said BEFORE the deal was signed, it remains a truth no matter when you state it.
I understand that as Dems we like seeing this, and applaud it wholeheartedly, but the Republicans want to get re-elected, it's really no biggie in the big scheme of things, I just would rather throw peeps under the bus when I know they can't get out from under!
Go to the 3:40 mark
The rest of his speech was fine, no doubt necessary, but he could've left that caveat out.
I understand that as Dems we like seeing this, and applaud it wholeheartedly, but the Republicans want to get re-elected, it's really no biggie in the big scheme of things, I just would rather throw peeps under the bus when I know they can't get out from under!
Go to the 3:40 mark
The rest of his speech was fine, no doubt necessary, but he could've left that caveat out.
Are you sure about 51?
I thought that they would need @ least a 3/5ths vote (60), just like any other measure, if the number is 51 they could've passed that long ago, the Dems have controlled the Senate since 2006, they've had over 50 since 2008, including independents of course.
I'm sure that they would need Republican votes to pass such a measure, that's the only way it has changed in the past with the Majority party having even more of one than now.
Recheck that number please.
I thought that this was a reason why there are several lawsuits pending on changing this, whether the Supreme Court hears them or not is another matter.
Or is the problem pulling ALL the Dems/Inds in line with this thinking?
I understand your point but this is the more aggressive Obama many on the Left have been asking for.
Oh, I'm an Independent, gave up on the Democratic Party years ago.
True indeed!
Oh, and I see that tomorrow is THE ONLY TIME where 51 votes can get it done on filibuster reform, since it is the start of a new Senate session, thanks to both you and HotSauce161 for informing me.
True indeed!
Oh, and I see that tomorrow is THE ONLY TIME where 51 votes can get it done on filibuster reform, since it is the start of a new Senate session, thanks to both you and HotSauce161 for informing me.
No problem. If the Harry Reid that's been talking shit and picking fights for the last few months shows up, they'll pass it but if he goes back to the "My friends on the other side" mealymouth shit he's been pulling for the three years before that, then it won't happen.
The magic # is 51.
You can only change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of the term, not at any later date. At the start of the new Congress the majority party sets the rules for how the Senate operates. The Senate tries to operate by way of tradition and gentleman's agreements. One such agreement in 2010 was proposed by Republican's so that Reid would not enact filibuster reform then, we see how that worked out. At the start of the next Congress I expect the Senate to raise the point of filibuster reform.
And point of fact, you only need 51 votes to pass legislation not 60. You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Republicans have threatened filibusters on many pieces of legislation that would have mustered 51 votes had they had a chance to get a floor vote. Republicans pulling d!ck moves like that flies in the face of Senate tradition, one of the reasons why Reid has finally come around on filibuster reform. It's supposed to be majority rule with the opposition raising objections only when something really objectionable is brought to the floor. Republicans are filibustering anything that furthers the Presidents agenda.
I like sh!t talking Reid. If Boehner can tell Reid to go f^ck himself during the fiscal cliff negotiations, then Reid can bring as much heat as he wants. Reid has come to realize that these cats are no longer respecting the traditions of the Senate so why should he? If the game has changed he's ready to change as well to protect his caucus.
Right, my understanding is that this is the primary reason for the lawsuits that several groups have against the filibuster, the way the Repubs have used it, by not even allowing legislation to get to the floor, is straight up abuse.
Pretty much. It's what I meant in our earlier discussion on judicial nominees. Think of the process like a Netflix dvd queue. What difference does it make if the President has 50 or 100 dvds in the queue if Republicans won't let any of them get delivered? They're just names on a list.
But with filibuster reform names on a list matter again. A 60 vote threshold for all legislation, not just 'controversial' pieces is just obstructionism. Yet, that is what the President was up against in his first term. Time for a rules change.
True, I understood what you meant, but whether they stop 50 or 500 you still have to put them thru their paces, put them to task for what they're doing, even if there's no hope, even if you're running a race and come in last, you still cross the finish line, right?
Thanks for the convo!
Agreed, good convo. In regards to nominees there is no debate on them. They just object and the person never gets a hearing. They never get out of the starting gate. There isn't an opportunity to make them look bad for it. Substituting another name is just another opportunity to see that person blocked. They have let a few people through but they've just blocked the rest of them en masse. They have blocked qualified candidates. You don't keep feeding them names just so they can block them. If you value the nominees, you don't put people through that process.
Similar threads
