Discussion: Harry Reid's Parting Shot: Dems Will Nuke The Filibuster For SCOTUS

TPM Article Topics
#21

The Senate was originally intended to be something of a brake on the Legislative process, and to be acting on behalf of state governments. The founders were not particular fans of democracy, and so we have a number of undemocratic provisions in the Constitution. Among these:

  • The Electoral College

  • Selection of Senators by State Legislatures
    (deleted in the XVIIth Amendment)

  • Lack of an initiative process for amending the constitution.
    (Given the complete SNAFU the initiative process has made of the
    California State Constitution, I tend to agree with this one.)

  • Referral of Amendments to State Legislatures rather the People.

6 Likes
#22

Yeesh… you torpedo the norms of the Senate for 8 years and expect the Dems not to finally stand up? I realize that you did something similar in the 90’s and it bit you in the ass but if you cannot accept responsibility for what you are doing you deserve to be spanked.

10 Likes
#23

Filibuster should have been nuked already. No fear, anger or sadness about it. Must be done.

3 Likes
#24

If ever there was a demonstration as to why “the nuclear option” is the right way to go, it has been this utterly childish handling of the Garland nom by the Republicans, and their irresponsible posturing regarding future nominees as well.

16 Likes
#25

If the GOP was truly against this they’d pledge to retain the 60-seat filibuster in perpetuity. But they know that’s an ultimate loser for them so instead they’ll whine and complain and eagerly take the step themselves if they have the chance.

4 Likes
#26

Damn it Reid…I can’t tell if this is GOTV for Republicans or GOTV for Democrats.

2 Likes
#27

Right on Harry, enough pussy footing around with these fools from right wing nut job hell.

2 Likes
#28

Which is worse:
#1

o-MCCONNELL-PAUL-facebook.jpg1536×1035 264 KB

or #2

McConnell-Laughing-998x766.png998×766 723 KB

4 Likes
#29

McConnell does botox

Who knew?

5 Likes
#30

Be careful what you wish for. The time will come when there is a Republican President and Republican Senate. “Remember Robert Bork!”

5 Likes
#31

I worry about that too, but on the other hand, the next time Republicans control the White House and Senate, they’ll do it in a heartbeat.

Could we be so lucky that they nominate Trump again in 2020… though I really don’t want to live through this again.

6 Likes
#32

I am against nuking the filibuster in general and especially for Supreme Court justices. However, I do support flipping the script, so to speak, and requiring 40 votes to sustain a filibuster instead of 60 votes to end one. That will require the minority opposition to be on the record and to organize to maintain the filibuster. If they feel strongly enough about an issue, they should be able to do so. However, it will hopefully reduce some of the filibustering for the sake of filibustering that we’ve seen.

11 Likes
#33

Elections have consequences. We’ll just need to keep winning elections. Which, I think is the point anyway. The Filibuster is incredibly non-democratic. It should have gone away for everything ages ago. The rights of minorities should be protected by the courts.

5 Likes
#34

As an intermediate step between today’s practice and abolishing the filibuster I would favor a rule requiring a real filibuster on the floor of the Senate. No more declaring an intent to filibuster and letting that set the agenda. Make them stand up there and read the phone book.

On a related topic: End the anonymous hold on bringing legislation to the floor. End the ‘blue slip’ practice where senators have veto power over federal judicial nominees in their home state.

14 Likes
#35

Absolutely right. In fact, it will be critical to do so if the Rs replay the obstruction tactics they used so successfully against Obama. If the Democrats win the WH and the Senate, the public will demand action on Hillary’s agenda, starting with the big infrastructure program, immigration reform, a tax bill, college tuition help, and strengthening Obamacare. If they don’t see it happening, the public will blame Madame President and the Democratic Senate majority for being incompetent, and the Democrats will get creamed in two years. So, results are critical. If the Republicans use the filibuster, the Democrats need to strike back by yanking it. The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It can be eliminated by a rules change that the Democratic majority can guarantee. With the filibuster gone and the Senate serving up big legistaive tickets, enormous pressure will be placed on the House, with a much stronger Democratic cast, even if there’s no Democratic majority. And an informal alliance of Democrats and moderate Republicans could make life miserable for a Speaker Ryan, if he tries to bottle bills up.

5 Likes
#36

The Dems will have only two years to ram some judges through.

They will lose the senate in 2018 most likely.

JUST DO IT.

8 Likes
#37

Lack of faith … fear —

I refuse to subscribe to it ! —

2 Likes
#38

Rules work only if both sides practice them in good faith.
That having not been the case, time to change them…

7 Likes
#39

Once more,careful with that ax,

Unless the upcoming coalition has President Clinton’s (knock on wood) back in regards to midterms, it would be smarter to get what ya can and take advantage of what GOP errors are given to ya.

1 Like
#40

To?

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available