Bye bye filibuster

So what's everyone's opinion on the democrats killing it?

No fan of Obama, but less of fan of those who have done this:

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
deaner
So what's everyone's opinion on the democrats killing it?

That Roe v Wade now has ten years left at best.

Interesting read.... I've looked around a little bit too to try and find the actual source/printed data of those 82 filibusters.

http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2013/11/22/no-republicans-have-not-blocked-82-obama-nominees/

I'll park this one here from Politifact about the above graphic:

Our ruling

Reid’s graphic said that "in the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

The figures are solidly sourced to the Congressional Research Service, but the graphic’s wording was wrong -- an error that Reid’s office acknowledged after we contacted them, and for which they released a corrected version of the graphic. Meanwhile, the question of how many pre-Obama presidents should be included is a bit murkier. The CRS report doesn’t incorporate data prior to 1949, but there’s evidence that blocked nominations were rare to nonexistent before that.

Since the revised numbers actually increase the accuracy of Reid's underlying point -- that blockages under Obama have accounted for a disproportionate share of those undertaken in United States history -- we rate the claim Mostly True.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

---

Andrew Steere
Lyndeborough, NH
KB1PJY

Before this turns into a shit show, what are thoughts on how this will change how were governed? Future power holders etc... Keeping red and blue out of it, based on our governments structure alone and future etc...

That's what my previous comment was about. Now that the ice is broken, I can't see the same rule change not being applied to SCOTUS nominees sometime soon. This will cause the court to make larger swings from side to side, making laws that you might think are established no longer safe. Roe will be first, since the anti-Roe folks already have 4. I'm not sure what will come after, but it will also be big.

For those who are fans of Herbert's Bureau of Sabotage, this isn't good.

There's nothing good about a government with a bought and paid for executive branch and legislative body, with a judicial that's appointed and confirmed by the bought.

Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to figure out a better system, so I think I'll just pour some more tequila.

---

Andrew Steere
Lyndeborough, NH
KB1PJY

It had to be done.

The current mostly republican plan of working actively to undermine and cripple everything about this federal government so they can say that government is broken is reprehensible. How is actively working to wreck the federal government different than treason.

The way to change the course of government is to win elections by having better ideas not sabotage.

I also think it gives the Democrats a big hall pass on bad laws and bad leadership as they can always say their leadership or law was not broken - it was sabotaged.

Departments should not go years with out leaders - they become a mess, important things get left undone, it creates uncertainty for all of us, it empowers bureaucrats in the department's middle management layer and it promotes inefficacy.

I am a capitalist - a working government is good for the economic well being of all. leadership vacuums allowing bureaucratic dithering is bad for all.

---

In the long run reality always wins.

Wouldn't changing the 2/3rds requirement to a majority vote be considered a "leadership vacuum," considering there will always be a majority? With looking around at our current affairs and situation here in the US, under democratic leadership, or actually the standing leadership in office right now, makes you have to wonder, in reference to JVLs meme, that there's good reason for stalling and looking to deeper into the laws that are being ram horned through the senate. One prime example, the ACA.

People can argue all day long that the change in the structure of the filibuster won't affect the sole purpose and intention of using it, but those people are stupid. Stupid in the sense that the majority will eventually change. And then what? Republicans now have more bill passing power than the other party.

I don't endorse either party. I lean a little further to the right however. I cringe when I hear brain dead people like Pelosi open their traps and say things like her amazingly asinine,"we have to pass the bill to know what's in it..."

I'm voting out of party lines from now on. Dems are too quick to pass shit and are over reaching. Republicans are lame horses now a days. Neither party can focus on anything that matters anymore without a showdown. Our countries framework is just fine, it's ALL the asshats in office pushing their own agendas and legacies that are killing us.

I think a good start are term limits. No one can fix that however except us. The people.

Quote
deaner
Wouldn't changing the 2/3rds requirement to a majority vote be considered a "leadership vacuum," considering there will always be a majority?

When the system is rigged for a two-party arrangement, yes. If we had a parliament, instead....