Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Harry Reid- traitor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    z,



    no, the filibuster was used for everything BUT keeping appointments moderate. it was used for merely opposing the government agency in question, to make a rhetorical point, to keep the President from undoing a former political balance, etc.
    it forced both sides to seek compromise... Now it is mob rule. A rule of the senate dating to 1789 undone by a corrupt pig from Nevada


    did you not read the second sentence of my original post? i don't care who eliminates the abuse of the filibuster; had Republicans succeeded under Bush i would have cheered them too.
    Liberty secured by representative government should trump mob rule.

    Comment


    • #17
      z,

      it forced both sides to seek compromise... Now it is mob rule. A rule of the senate dating to 1789 undone by a corrupt pig from Nevada
      one wonders how both sides compromised prior to the last 20-30 years. was it mob rule when it went unused in the past?



      Liberty secured by representative government should trump mob rule. .
      going from 60 votes to 51 for nominations hardly represents a declination of representative government to mob rule.

      for that matter, before the filibuster was abused, 51 votes was seen as good for legislation, not just nomination. the filibuster was supposed to be the "break only in case of emergency", not used every single time.

      as ezra klein noted:

      Nine reasons the filibuster change is a huge deal

      5. As Gregory Koger, a University of Miami political scientist who researches the filibuster, told me: ďOver the last 50 years, we have added a new veto point in American politics. It used to be the House, the Senate and the president, and now itís the House, the president, the Senate majority and the Senate minority. Now you need to get past four veto points to pass legislation. Thatís a huge change of constitutional priorities. But itís been done, almost unintentionally, through procedural strategies of party leaders.Ē
      Attached Files
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        good. the President should be able pick the people he wants on his own staff. i was for filibuster reform back in the Bush administration-- Reid was a fool for playing the obstructionist game then. Republicans were even bigger ones for doing so on a far higher volume during the current Administration.
        so court judges are now part of the Presidents staff?

        why bother with the courts then.

        Comment


        • #19
          i was referring to the Executive branch nominations.

          but as for courts, yes, the President should be able to nominate people to the courts, with the judgment made based only on qualifications, not on political leanings. that's how the system is supposed to work. Justice Roberts, for instance, was nominated and put in place because everyone recognized he was supremely (bad pun intended) qualified, despite liberal unease due to him being an acknowledged conservative.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by astralis View Post
            i was referring to the Executive branch nominations.

            but as for courts, yes, the President should be able to nominate people to the courts, with the judgment made based only on qualifications, not on political leanings. that's how the system is supposed to work. Justice Roberts, for instance, was nominated and put in place because everyone recognized he was supremely (bad pun intended) qualified, despite liberal unease due to him being an acknowledged conservative.
            should and does are two separate things.

            Was Roberts nominated because he was 'qualified', or because he would be approved.

            you've just removed the part that would keep political leanings out since the minority has no way to object to the nominee.

            Comment


            • #21
              bfng,

              you've just removed the part that would keep political leanings out since the minority has no way to object to the nominee.
              that's because in the past, the minority just bit the bullet and accepted it-- knowing that when it was their turn to be in charge, they could do the same. the senate was built on tacit acceptances like this until recently.

              that is why the filibuster was almost always unused until approximately 30 years ago.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                bfng,



                that's because in the past, the minority just bit the bullet and accepted it-- knowing that when it was their turn to be in charge, they could do the same. the senate was built on tacit acceptances like this until recently.

                that is why the filibuster was almost always unused until approximately 30 years ago.
                Well the Dems sure did bork that... This will be seen by future generations as a dark day for representative government.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  Well the Dems sure did bork that... This will be seen by future generations as a dark day for representative government.
                  Yeah. It sure sucks when a minority can no longer hold the majority hostage.
                  Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bonehead View Post
                    Yeah. It sure sucks when a minority can no longer hold the majority hostage.
                    Yes it does, it leaves us with majority rule. The minority voice has now been silenced...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X