In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster - NY Times

[realizm]

Senators Harry Reid, the majority leader, and Charles E. Schumer on Thursday.

By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: November 21, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved the most fundamental alteration of its rules in more than a generation on Thursday, ending the minority party’s ability to filibuster most presidential nominees in response to the partisan gridlock that has plagued Congress for much of the Obama administration.
Multimedia

Furious Republicans accused Democrats of a power grab, warning them that they would deeply regret their action if they lost control of the Senate next year and the White House in years to come. Invoking the Founding Fathers and the meaning of the Constitution, Republicans said Democrats were trampling the minority rights the framers intended to protect. But when the vote was called, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader who was initially reluctant to force the issue, prevailed 52 to 48.

Under the change, the Senate will be able to cut off debate on executive and judicial branch nominees with a simple majority rather than rounding up a supermajority of 60 votes. The new precedent established by the Senate on Thursday does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or legislation itself.

It represented the culmination of years of frustration over what Democrats denounced as a Republican campaign to stall the machinery of Congress, stymie President Obama’s agenda and block his choices for cabinet posts and federal judgeships by insisting that virtually everything the Senate approves be done by a supermajority.

After repeatedly threatening to change the rules, Mr. Reid decided to follow through when Republicans refused this week to back down from their effort to keep Mr. Obama from filling any of three vacancies on the most powerful appeals court in the country.

This was the final straw for some Democratic holdouts against limiting the filibuster, providing Mr. Reid with the votes he needed to impose a new standard certain to reverberate through the Senate for years.

“There has been unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction,” Mr. Reid said as he set in motion the steps for the vote on Thursday. “The Senate is a living thing, and to survive it must change as it has over the history of this great country. To the average American, adapting the rules to make the Senate work again is just common sense.”

Read More: Source

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Oh please... The Democrats aren't innocent in this nonsense either.  

[BreeddekalbL]

lets not forget this

 

 

yet when the house did this under republican rule it was all fine and dandy, and yet the democrat changes the rules to a simple majority, they get all riled and up in arms about this.. fair game is fair game....

[Turbo19]

Oh please... The Democrats aren't innocent in this nonsense either.  

No one ever stated they were. As a whole the Senate is f**ked up.

 

For what it's worth though, a hypothetical. Consider the situation, the Democratic majority sees the opportunity and they act on it. Now reverse the situation, if it were a Republican majority would they not do the same to get the advantage in all this?

 

 

yet when the house did this under republican rule it was all fine and dandy, and yet the democrat changes the rules to a simple majority, they get all riled and up in arms about this.. fair game is fair game....

Damn, that was a f**king mess.

 

Either way this was overdue, by a longshot. These tactics have been abused for the longest time and though it's nothing more than wishful thinking perhaps now it'll be easier to progress forward.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No one ever stated they were. As a whole the Senate is f**ked up.

In the article they (being the Democrats) act as if they are.  That was my point.

[Turbo19]

In the article they (being the Democrats) act as if they are.  That was my point.

Right, right. You know, for someone that claims an independent stance you sure like to bash Democrats a lot.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Right, right. You know, for someone that claims an independent stance you sure like to bash Democrats a lot.

Yes because many of them are full of sh*t.  For your information, I think I voted for more Democrats on Election Day than Republicans, so there.  That doesn't mean I can't be critical of them.  You're not even old enough to vote yet are you? lol

[Turbo19]

Yes because many of them are full of sh*t.  For your information, I think I voted for more Democrats on Election Day than Republicans, so there.  That doesn't mean I can't be critical of them.  You're not even old enough to vote yet are you? lol

Dude, cool your jets. I was just mentioning the fact, that's all. And for the record you're critical of everything so this isn't so much a shock as it is more of a joke if anything else at all.

 

And don't pull that voting crap out of your ass, who do you take me for, your mainman Checkmate? Regardless, it's irrelevant in the situation at hand, and will be indefinitely in a few months..

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Regardless, it's irrelevant in the situation at hand, and will be indefinitely in a few months..

We'll see about that... 

[realizm]

Those holding positions in the House of Representatives and the Senate have no choice but to to keep the government moving in the wake of the past government shutdown which was a dangerous situation. Enough of this with these few selective obstructionist Tea party conservatives who would had rather saw the government shut down just to push their agenda in which they were unsuccessful.

 

Hence the landmark vote as a start to promote bipartisanship.

 

The democratic process needs to be allowed to flow with the political parties working in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. If there is an interruption due to blocking due process and political footballing then the US Government will lose solid ground again with will dire consequences.

[Turbo19]

We'll see about that... 

Come to think about it, you being the faccia de merda you are could place a hit on me. Or perhaps I'll die in a vehicular accident. More likely than not there is a chance I'll OD on something, so yeah, we'll see.

Those holding positions in the House of Representatives and the Senate have no choice but to to keep the government moving in the wake of the past government shutdown which was a dangerous situation. Enough of this with these few selective obstructionist Tea party conservatives who would had rather saw the government shut down just to push their agenda in which they were unsuccessful.

 

Hence the landmark vote as a start to promote bipartisanship.

 

The democratic process needs to be allowed to flow with the political parties working in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. If there is an interruption due to blocking due process and political footballing then the US Government will lose solid ground again with will dire consequences.

You raise another point, and I'm glad you did. The minority keeps conducting themselves in an obstructive manner, serving as a major impediment. Personally I'm convinced they do this as they don't have the ability to debate with conciseness, but let them believe their agenda is getting through.

[Interested Rider]

What seems to be forgotten here is that 99% of Obama's appointees have been approved and the number that did not get approved was quite miniscule. The same Democrats who pushed through this rule were in opposition to the rule when it was proposed by the Republicans during the time they were in power. The Republicans dropped their attempt based on the opposition from the Democrats at that time.  Now the Democrats want it their way so that they can force down the throats of the American people things that are not needed or wanted whether through executive order of the president or passing a humongous bill that no one bothers to read before it was passed. The attitude in Washington  (to quote former speaker Nancy Pelosi) is " you have to pass the bill to read it". This is what our legislative branch has come to in this day and age. 

 

This is the reason that I suggest that everyone take the time to read Mark R. Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments" which presents solutions that will help to get this country back to the principles of the United States Constitution. His other books "Men in Black" and "Ameratopia" help to layout the framework of how our society got into this mess in the first place. I am just as disgusted as anyone else as I see how our right of free speech (among other rights) has been eroded for the good of the state bureaucracy and what happened in the Senate is just one more example on that road.

 

One last thought on this whole matter: My views on the Republican leadership in both houses is the same and I feel Karl Rove should keep quiet as his boss, the last Republican president was just as fiscally irresponsible as this one is now and that was with a Republican Senate. 

 

   

[realizm]

I am just as disgusted as anyone else as I see how our right of free speech (among other rights) has been eroded for the good of the state bureaucracy and what happened in the Senate is just one more example on that road.

 

One last thought on this whole matter: My views on the Republican leadership in both houses is the same and I feel Karl Rove should keep quiet as his boss, the last Republican president was just as fiscally irresponsible as this one is now and that was with a Republican Senate. 

 

Points noted but this one side point stood out to me.

 

One of the problem with this system is that the lawmakers and US courts many times go by their intepretation of the US Constitution, not the actual context and original intent of the congressmen who pushed for it to be written into law. Our rights relative to these judges and lawmakers in the courts, in the house and senate, up to the president of the United States in the White House. Their intepretation, not actual meaning of laws supposed to protect citizens.

 

Example: The bills passed into law after 9/11/2001. With a signing of the pen the President can actually overide the US Congress and the US Constitution and excersize emergency powers, by initiating martial law. Again a misintepretation of the US Constitution on the part of really the president who forced the bill through Congress forcing them to vote on the law without time for review. President Bush forced these clauses (USA PATRIOT Act) through Congress and Obama forced the extension. Tough pill to swallow.

[realizm]

Going further: The First Amendment is a dead rigner. Media disinformation and false propaganda, I agree Interested Rider. From everything from propagandic reporting, to biased control of the status quo based on a variety of factors, are all there and a major tool used is the media by the marketing firms that represent the major corperations. Along with the goverment's control of the press through the White House Committee, are we really getting the facts? Are we really seeing our country and the American stage for what it is or did we forget to take our rose colored glasses off before peering into the horizon of the world scene?

 

We have to be careful what we read, also we have to see to it that we posess critical thinking skills to read behind the lines and know our rights. Remembering that all forms of goverment has its share of corruption. Our lawmakers has histoirically made many mistakes and some do have a hidden agenda that is counterproductive to our democratic state as compared to countries considered police states. Indeed.

[Grand Concourse]

It's supposed to be a majority for a reason. Changing the rules, so to speak, is a bad thing. It's a separation of powers for a reason so that one branch can't hold all the power. And why are the dems so eager to push this thru? Didn't obama get his 2 picks for the supreme court? One of them being his sort of 'hariet meyers' a person who had no real experience on the bench other than be some law professor? Where was the outrage from that?

If/when the gop takes the senate with their 60 member majority, then what? Democrats going to change the rules again? I think they should've left things alone and kept things fair for either party.

[Interested Rider]

There is another issue here that seems to be forgotten by the mainstream media and the Republican Party as well. It all boils down to the question that I am always asked when I state what party I am affiliated with today in conversations. "What does the Republican Party stand for?" It seems that the National Republican Leadership instead of offering new ideas or alternatives to the Democratic Party's ideas is one of "me-too", not offering something new but going along with  what the Democratic Party placed on the table. Party members are "fed up" with this thinking that has been going on for years as the National Republican Leadership cannot understand why elections are being lost year after year as they are not offering alternatives which is what the public is asking for today. Those that do are pilloried by the "Washington Establishment" (Yes! Karl Rove you and your friends) and money is withheld from good candidates that can win (The New York Post article this past Thursday  by A. George opposite the Editorial page on the Republican Candidate for New York City Comptroller should be examined as it provides an excellent example of this) and could have won elections if the money was provided for the campaign. Yet a Mitt Romney was chosen by the leadership in 2012 and who created Romneycare which was Obamacare which turned voters off completely. The National Republican Leadership is talking about another Bush in 2016 (Heaven forbid). If that is the case then the Democrats could run anyone they want and will win the presidency in a walk.

 

People forget that the Tea Party" was started because of then President Bush (who went to Yale and obviously learned nothing) as if he would have studied history correctly would have not sent American troops to fight a war in Iraq. Then he expanded Medicare in a way that made the Democrats proud  as even though the Senate was controlled by Republicans. So what will happen if the Republicans take control of the Senate which they are saying that must be done in 2014, quite honestly nothing! The Democrats will still be united and the Republicans will put knives in each other's back as we have seen over the past couple of years so for intensive purposes, the Democrats will still run the Senate as the Republicans will vote with the Democrats again.

[MHV9218]

It's supposed to be a majority for a reason. Changing the rules, so to speak, is a bad thing. It's a separation of powers for a reason so that one branch can't hold all the power. And why are the dems so eager to push this thru? Didn't obama get his 2 picks for the supreme court? One of them being his sort of 'hariet meyers' a person who had no real experience on the bench other than be some law professor? Where was the outrage from that?

If/when the gop takes the senate with their 60 member majority, then what? Democrats going to change the rules again? I think they should've left things alone and kept things fair for either party.

 

You're contradicting yourself. It WAS the majority, and then Republicans (and Clinton, in a deal) changed the rules a decade or two ago to make it a 60-person threshold. This is the return to the original policy. This IS leaving things alone. 

 

Are you really comparing Harriet Miers and Elena Kagan? She wasn't exactly 'some law professor,' she was the dean of Harvard Law School and worked in the legal system for years earlier as a judicial clerk and later as the US Solicitor General.