Another day, another article about the dysfunction of Congress. Why oh why can’t Congress get its shit together and do their motherfuckin jobs? What sort of warped suckitude is Congress working up to ruin everyone’s summer, you ask? It’s the filibuster! Or rather, filibuster reform through the nuclear option of changing the rules to allow a simple majority to move through some (but not all) Senate nominees in order to fill a multitude of judicial and executive vacancies. SO EXCITING! It is, dammit, and we are here to make it more interesting to learn about, so pay attention!
I like the idea of a tax increase for the upper 2% everytime they filibuster maybe a 1 million dollar reduction in defense spending would help them along
Fuck. I hope so. I even hope the Supremes rule in favor, because then FUCK THIS FILIBUSTERING.
(Actually, in theory, I kind of support Harry's reluctance to nuke the filibuster. Applied to legislation, it's possible to see it as a check on over-hasty decisions. But allowing it to apply to routine executive and judicial appointments is ridiculous. MAYbe, it should still apply to Cabinet and Supreme Court appointments, but below that, fuck off).
So, I am not a big fan of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Nevertheless, all of you who condemn / make fun of him for his worthlessness on filibuster reform might consider a few points.
(1) The notion of the filibuster, while it is certainly extra-Constitutional, has been around for a while. When applied to legislation, it may actually have some value in that it serves as a brake on possibly over-reaching bills. (NOTE: This is, of course, somewhat contradicted by the current use of the filibuster to block <i>any</i> initiatives from the current President, because he is black. But this may not always be the case).
(2) Harry is the Majority Leader, but he leads a pretty slim majority of ideologically diverse Senators. I do not know what each of them think about the filibuster, but he needs to.
(3) Some folks argue that the Democrats should completely remove the filibuster because the Republicans will certainly do so if they regain control of the Senate. I think this is unlikely. During previous periods when the Republicans controlled the Senate, the Democrats did, occasionally, employ the filibuster, but at not even close to the rate at which the Republicans have used in recent years. If the Republicans were to nuke the filibuster, they would have to know that it would be permanent, and that they might well lose the Senate again (it&#039;s impossible to gerrymander Senate seats).
So. Personally, I&#039;d like to see the rules modified so that you cannot block a nominee below Cabinet or Supreme Court level, or maybe that there is a limited number of such blocks per session of Congress. For legislation, I&#039;d be okay with allowing each Senator one or two blocks per Congressional session, but no anonymity. The anonymity really pisses me off.
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, &quot;How do I know you won&#039;t sting me?&quot; The scorpion says, &quot;Because if I do, I will die too.&quot;
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp &quot;Why?&quot;
Replies the scorpion: &quot;Its my nature...&quot;
turgid penis? not likely, we&#039;ll get another sternly worded letter, another empty promise and more hand wringing in front of the cameras
the real dog and pony show is the whole good cop/bad cop BS that we&#039;re subjected to. Harry and the rest of the Dems like the status quo just fine and only go through these motions to appease the base and when the GOP gets a little too greedy. 90+ out of 100 Senators care FAR more about their Senatorial privilege and the trappings of the institution than they do about the welfare of the country
the chicken was asking for it...
I like the idea of a tax increase for the upper 2% everytime they filibuster maybe a 1 million dollar reduction in defense spending would help them along
Senator Vitter would be sooo jealous.
Vitter has a few loads handy &quot;at any given time&quot; (his words, seriously)
Transformers
I think teabaggers should have to teabag nominees to block. I do not want to see this, but I don&#039;t watch CSPAN anyway.
From orbit. <a href="http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=aCbfMkh940Q" target="_blank"> It&#039;s the only way to be sure.</a>
And how would that change anything?
And how will that change anything?
&ldquo;The minority&rsquo;s out of business.&rdquo;
Yeah, Mitch, that&#039;s sort of the whole idea. And stop the fucking whining, because it&#039;s your Party of Stupid that made it necessary.
It&#039;s when the clots move up to the lungs that you start seeing results.
Fuck. I hope so. I even hope the Supremes rule in favor, because then FUCK THIS FILIBUSTERING.
(Actually, in theory, I kind of support Harry&#039;s reluctance to nuke the filibuster. Applied to legislation, it&#039;s possible to see it as a check on over-hasty decisions. But allowing it to apply to routine executive and judicial appointments is ridiculous. MAYbe, it should still apply to Cabinet and Supreme Court appointments, but below that, fuck off).
So, I am not a big fan of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Nevertheless, all of you who condemn / make fun of him for his worthlessness on filibuster reform might consider a few points.
(1) The notion of the filibuster, while it is certainly extra-Constitutional, has been around for a while. When applied to legislation, it may actually have some value in that it serves as a brake on possibly over-reaching bills. (NOTE: This is, of course, somewhat contradicted by the current use of the filibuster to block <i>any</i> initiatives from the current President, because he is black. But this may not always be the case).
(2) Harry is the Majority Leader, but he leads a pretty slim majority of ideologically diverse Senators. I do not know what each of them think about the filibuster, but he needs to.
(3) Some folks argue that the Democrats should completely remove the filibuster because the Republicans will certainly do so if they regain control of the Senate. I think this is unlikely. During previous periods when the Republicans controlled the Senate, the Democrats did, occasionally, employ the filibuster, but at not even close to the rate at which the Republicans have used in recent years. If the Republicans were to nuke the filibuster, they would have to know that it would be permanent, and that they might well lose the Senate again (it&#039;s impossible to gerrymander Senate seats).
So. Personally, I&#039;d like to see the rules modified so that you cannot block a nominee below Cabinet or Supreme Court level, or maybe that there is a limited number of such blocks per session of Congress. For legislation, I&#039;d be okay with allowing each Senator one or two blocks per Congressional session, but no anonymity. The anonymity really pisses me off.
The Scorpion and the Frog
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, &quot;How do I know you won&#039;t sting me?&quot; The scorpion says, &quot;Because if I do, I will die too.&quot;
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp &quot;Why?&quot;
Replies the scorpion: &quot;Its my nature...&quot;
turgid penis? not likely, we&#039;ll get another sternly worded letter, another empty promise and more hand wringing in front of the cameras
the real dog and pony show is the whole good cop/bad cop BS that we&#039;re subjected to. Harry and the rest of the Dems like the status quo just fine and only go through these motions to appease the base and when the GOP gets a little too greedy. 90+ out of 100 Senators care FAR more about their Senatorial privilege and the trappings of the institution than they do about the welfare of the country
/Notholdingmybreath
I&#039;d put Nancy ahead of Harry, but that&#039;s a pretty low bar