The Third Nuclear Option: Ending The Legislative Filibuster
A second nuke is about to be dropped in the Senate. Metaphorically, of course. Democrats are about to mount a filibuster against Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, and in response Republicans are about to do completely away with the ability of the Senate to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. That all seems certain, at this point. But it does raise a larger question: is the practice of filibustering legislation also in danger of extinction?
Most people don't fully understand the filibuster, which isn't all that surprising seeing as how it's an arcane segment of a larger (and much more arcane) set of rules, which dictate how the Senate does its business. The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure, and all such procedures are agreed upon by the Senate as their first order of business after a new Congress is seated. None of this is set in stone, no matter how long or storied a history it may have in the chamber. The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It is merely a tactic the Senate has gotten used to using, which means it can be changed at any time.
Filibusters were incredibly rare in the first century of American government, and didn't really become normal in any big way until the 1970s. Previous to that, filibusters were only mounted on significant pieces of legislation. They were also the famous "talking filibusters" that we all remember from seeing Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. A senator had to talk endlessly, because that was the definition of the filibuster at the time. Also at the time, a two-thirds vote was necessary to stop a filibuster (which, today, would be 67 votes).
The Senate made two major changes to these rules in the 1970s, lowering the bar to overcome a filibuster to three-fifths (60 votes), and removing the test of oratory stamina. Henceforth filibusters would be automatic rather than a marathon speechifyin' session. The vote would be held, and if there weren't 60 votes to move forward on it, the issue would just die. A few stalwarts in recent years have mounted real talking "filibusters" (one of them, by Ted Cruz, wasn't technically even a filibuster), but for the most part it is now a painless and automatic process. Both of these changes show that the filibuster is whatever the Senate defines it to be, in its own rules-making process. It's not like you need a constitutional amendment to change it, in other words.
Probably because of these changes in large part, the use of filibusters has grown enormously since the 1970s. Both parties have added to this growth, because how you see the filibuster depends on whether you're in the Senate's majority or not. When in the minority, filibusters are seen as absolutely necessary. When in the majority, not so much.
The last time the Republicans were in the minority, the use of the filibuster hit all-time highs. Pretty much any bill of any import had to get over the 60-vote hurdle, sometimes multiple times. The use had gotten so painless and automatic that it became downright routine. Now that Democrats are in the minority, they're looking for payback, meaning for the foreseeable future any important bill will need 60 votes to make it through the Senate. Bills don't even have to be all that important, in actuality, because the automatic filibuster is so baked into the cake that any bill more impactful than naming a post office will now likely have to clear this bar.
So the question becomes: is this really the way the citizens want the Senate to work? With the partisan divide so stark right now, it is incredibly hard for either party to gain a 60-seat majority. But if we need 60 votes to get anything done, doesn't that mean that nothing much of anything will get done? That's the way it has worked for the past few years, so it's valid to raise the question of whether that's the way people want the Senate to work or not.
A few years ago, when Barack Obama was president and Harry Reid led the majority in the Senate, Republicans blocked so many of Obama's judicial and executive appointments that the first "nuclear option" was used. Reid denied Republicans the ability to filibuster any appointees, including judges (but not including Supreme Court justices). Any presidential appointment up to (but not including) Supreme Court nominees would be approved by a simple majority vote. This idea had actually been floated by Republicans previously (back when George W. Bush was president), but back then a bipartisan "Gang of Fourteen" agreed to stop the worst abuses of the filibuster to get Bush's appointments through. But by the time of Obama and Reid, there was no such bipartisan effort, so Harry was forced into dropping the nuke.
Mitch McConnell is about to drop the second such nuke. Democrats are rightly incensed that Republicans denied Barack Obama his constitutional right to name a justice to the Supreme Court, and so will be trying to stop Donald Trump's nominee with everything they've got. McConnell is reportedly trying to convince Democrats that they should really save their filibustering for Trump's next nominee, who could change the balance of the court. This, though, is a distinction without a difference to Democrats. Whether the nuke is dropped now or then, it's very likely going to be dropped, so what difference does it make when it happens? A McConnell promise not to drop it on a second nominee is pretty worthless, in other words, so Democrats shouldn't fall for this losing bargain because it's likely a trap.
When McConnell drops this second nuke, all presidential nominees -- including Supreme Court picks -- will be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. Will this change the basic structure of government all that much? So far, the fallout from Harry Reid's nuke hasn't been all that noticeable. Trump's cabinet mostly got confirmed, but most new presidents also see their cabinets confirmed with only a few rejections.
The third nuclear option, however, would have much more far-reaching consequences. Historically, the Senate has functioned as a "saucer to cool heated legislation from the House." There are many versions of this quote, supposedly said by George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, back in the days when saucers were actually used on a regular basis (you got a hot beverage in a cup, then poured it into your saucer and blew on it to cool it before drinking). The House would always have its hotheads, but the Senate would calm things down and soberly pare down legislation to remove the more heated bits. Back then, though, senators were appointed by their state legislatures, and not directly elected.
That sober-minded ideal has been changing a lot over the past two decades. Back when Newt Gingrich took over the House, there were still enough senators that cared deeply about the institutional stature of the Senate to thwart much of Gingrich's "revolution." Even the Gang of Fourteen proved that this feeling still existed in the early 2000s. But since that time, there has been a lot of turnover in the Senate, and now the arguments there are just as hotheaded as in the House.
This is where you can take the argument one of two ways. Either the legislative filibuster is more crucially important now than ever, or the filibuster is a historical hangover which is doomed to extinction. The "out" party (Democrats, currently) relies on the filibuster as their only chance to stop extreme legislation. The "in" party hates being thwarted in such fashion. But encroachments on the minority party already exist, in the form of budget "reconciliation" bills, which cannot be filibustered (but also have to be limited to only dealing with budgetary matters). So the legislative filibuster already has cracks in it.
Not a whole lot gets done in the Senate these days. They're about to debate yet another "continuing resolution" for the budget, which in layman's terms means it has been years since the normal process of enacting a budget has been successfully completed. Budget bills never make it through the Senate, so instead they just leave the government spending largely on autopilot, and tinker a bit with continuing resolutions or other omnibus bills. The Senate has been stuck in almost complete legislative gridlock since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, in fact. The number of important bills passed each year since then can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Is this what the American people deserve from their government? A Senate so mired in quicksand that nothing much ever happens unless a sword of doom is hanging over their heads (in the form of a government shutdown or fiscal cliff)? Because that's what we've got now. Democrats see this as a good thing, currently, but they didn't see it the same way when they were in power. The same is true for the Republicans, if you just reverse the order of that previous sentence.
So what do Americans really want? A government that only moves when the threat of inaction becomes so politically perilous that partisanship has to be set at least partially aside? Or a government that moves so quickly that we'll travel from one party's extreme laws to the other, as the balance of power shifts in Congress? If the third nuke is eventually dropped, the pace of legislation will indeed increase, but it might increase to the point of disaster, absent the check on the hotheads that the filibuster now provides.
That's kind of alarmist, I realize. Perhaps the reality wouldn't turn out quite that bad. After all, we just witnessed how a single party can fail to achieve consensus on a major piece of legislation among themselves, because they couldn't agree on the way forward. The failure of the House to pass Ryancare is an object lesson in how even a party in power can have internal checks on going too far too fast. From the other side of the political spectrum, even with a huge majority in the Senate, Democrats also were stymied by internal divisions when writing the Obamacare law. There will always be factions like the Tea Party, the Blue Dogs (and the Yellow Dogs before them), and the so-called "moderates." Since we only have two major parties, each has to incorporate some hotheaded factions, to put this in slightly different terms.
Would this be enough to save America from hotheaded legislation in general, if there were no filibuster in the Senate? It's very hard to say. The Tea Partiers stopped Paul Ryan this time, but they won't always stand in his way, one assumes. The Blue Dogs made major changes to Obamacare, but it passed in the end. Even if Ryancare had made it through the House, over a dozen Republican senators had already indicated that they couldn't vote for it. Perhaps there is enough internal tension within each party to avoid legislative excesses.
It'd be a very high-stakes gamble, that's for sure. But once nuclear parity is achieved, with Harry Reid dropping the first nuke and then Mitch McConnell dropping the second, sooner or later it is going to occur to one of the political parties that if getting rid of filibusters on appointments is a good idea, then maybe it'd also be a good idea to get rid of the entire concept forever. That much appears certain -- while ending legislative filibusters would once have been a downright unthinkable concept, it will now just be the next step down the road the Senate is already taking.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Program note -
I swear I wrote and posted this before seeing today's column from George Will:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-filibuster-isnt-what-it-used-to-be-its-time-to-bring-the-old-way-back/2017/03/29/f8242af0-13e9-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html
He discusses bringing back the old "talking" filibuster, which I didn't really address in my article. But I was a bit surprised to see the same subject in the Washington Post so quickly, I have to admit!
:-)
-CW
One has to wonder if we would be having these discussions if there were rules governing the behavior of the congress-critters...
Would we see the abuse of the "reconciliation" process that we see today if the law of the land was much like it is in California, no budget, no pay?
I think that the GOP would be foolish to drop the remaining nukes... but then again in the zero sum world of lobbying that has become "congress" short term gains for ones money interests tends to rule over the interests of the actual citizens. I was in support of the R-bomb getting dropped because as I see it a president is entitled to whomever they choose to be their advisers, of course so long as they are not foreign agents... Likewise I also believe in a functional judiciary system. I may not like the advisers or the judicial selections, but that is immaterial to a point, as to some extent to the victors go the spoils.
To me, preserving the filibuster for supremes and major legislation is more important than most people might think as it forces congress to actually talk with each other to get 60 votes. If you can't get 60 votes go back to the drawing board until you can.... This prevents bad selections from stacking the court, although the court would still swing a bit, and keeps major pieces of legislation from becoming just bad pieces of legislation the benefit solely the corporate interests of either party. No, the auto filibuster we have in place now also does not work...I think if you are going to filibuster you need to line them up and have a speach-a-thon. Sorry, no panhandling from corporate interests today... you have a filibuster to attend.
I like to think that the majority of Americans simply want to see a government more responsive to their needs and one that works together to actually govern. Even in today's market of information contoured to what makes one comfortable, I have faith in our citizens to realize that you can't always get 100 percent of what you want, but you will get what you need (as a side note, I find, trumps use of that Stones song a rather humorous way of telling his voters they will not get what they want...) and can look to fix it down the road.
In the current day the only time politics really pits us against each other is when you are in an environment that is designed for only one side, or you break one of the social taboos for political discussion. In theory I could slide up on bar stool next to Michale and have a beer with him or go shopping in his shop and we would probably get along or the same could be said for having a seat with Alto or any number of others around...I know this works having worked both the RNC and DNC and have been forced to work and socialize with those that have radically different points of view.
Perhaps the answer to getting congress backs to governing is to take the power away from congress determining how congress behaves. After each election and before a new congress is seated we form a citizens commission that is comprised of a member from each recognized political party from every state and voting territory names are selected at random from the voter roles and they are convened like a grand jury and they get to set regulation for congress... You know like No budget, no pay... this is what you can reconcile this is what you can't .... or how about no fundraising while congress is in session.
Gotta get off of the soap box...Time to catch a plane.
Mitch McConnell is about to drop the second such nuke. Democrats are rightly incensed that Republicans denied Barack Obama his constitutional right to name a justice to the Supreme Court, and so will be trying to stop Donald Trump's nominee with everything they've got. McConnell is reportedly trying to convince Democrats that they should really save their filibustering for Trump's next nominee, who could change the balance of the court. This, though, is a distinction without a difference to Democrats. Whether the nuke is dropped now or then, it's very likely going to be dropped, so what difference does it make when it happens?
It could make a HUGE difference..
Postulate a scenario where President Trump's popularity continues to plummet. I concede... It could happen..
So, then you have an UNPOPULAR President whose nominee is also unpopular...
All of the sudden, the filibuster WOULD have the desired effect..
Oh, but shucky darn, the Democrats ALREADY lost the filibuster using it against a nominee that EVERYONE agreed was acceptable..
I said it before and I'll say it again..
If Democrats had more than 2 brain cells to rub together, they would realize that the smartest tactical move would be to preserve the filibuster and use it where it will tactically do the most good...
The funny thing is, there was near universal agreement on that point from the vast majority of Weigantians..
Of course, when the Democrats opted to fight Gorsuch, virtually *ALL* of those Weigantians, all of the sudden, changed their minds..
"Oh, I've ALWAYS thought it was a good idea to fight the Gorsuch nomination!!"
Not Party slaves, my ass!! :D
Excellent commentary, CW...
I love these informative commentaries that hold both Partys accountable for their screw-ups...
delayed response to comment 35 from "Will Dems work with Trump"
You intruded into my conversation with goode trickle and now you want me to cite what you wrote?
Have you forgotten or are you just being annoying?
You do realize that by agreeing with my "other interpretations are possible" argument you are admitting that racism may sometimes be a factor, right?
Or are just skimming and not following?
OMG!
I read your comments about my comments.
Somebody call the Pope.
36
Cut and paste into Google-
racism emergency room
I know it's difficult, but if you only read the pages of article titles you will still learn something... or crawl further into willful ignorance and denial... or maybe just exercise your clicking finger while staring blankly or something... unlike Listen, I have no idea how you process thoughts.
Unlike the survey of cops, the results that come up are NIH funded scientific papers and media reports about them. No wiggle room for favorable interpretations.
If it makes you feel better, sometimes patients are racist too... and there are articles about that as well.
As for the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees and surrendered, goode trickle provided the background info on what happened before the video starts...
It's funny that you are being wishy washy about it now.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were leaving room for the possibility that the beating wasn't justified after all.
The whole "we can't know because we don't have all the information" bit is either an excuse to avoid condemning the brutality or a cop out (no pun intended) to avoid taking a stand in defense of the brutality.
In the article I linked to in my first comment about this, there is a video of a retired police chief being interviewed... and he defended the cop.
Why are you wimping out?
A
Altohone,
You intruded into my conversation with goode trickle and now you want me to cite what you wrote?
Have you forgotten or are you just being annoying?
Hay, senility is slowly creeping up on me.. :D I barely remember what I had for breakfast this morning...
It was an oatmeal raisin cookie and 3 cans of Diet Coke, if yer curious...
I am constantly badgered and bugged to cite my claims.. I figure the LEAST I can do is spreak the joi.. :D
You do realize that by agreeing with my "other interpretations are possible" argument you are admitting that racism may sometimes be a factor, right?
Abso-frakin'-tively I am agreeing with you that racism could be a factor.. I have *NEVER* claimed otherwise..
My point then, now and always, is that racism is the ONLY factor that the anti-cop fanatics proffer...
I read your comments about my comments.
Somebody call the Pope.
Cite???
Cut and paste into Google-
racism emergency room
Your source of "proof" is a google page?? :D
Unlike the survey of cops, the results that come up are NIH funded scientific papers and media reports about them. No wiggle room for favorable interpretations.
Then it won't be a problem for you to cite one...
As for the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees and surrendered, goode trickle provided the background info on what happened before the video starts...
If I recall correctly (I could be wrong, a lot's happened since then)......
"Stanley, did you mean what you said before about how bringing a child into this world is an act of cruelty??"
"I meant it at the time.."
"At the time!?? Stanley, it was like 7 seconds ago!!"
"Well, gee whiz. Kinda a lot's happened since then.."
-THE ROCK
....er.. where was I??
Oh yea.. If I recall correctly, GT didn't describe THAT specific incident, but rather an approximation of the incident based on GT's personal knowledge of the area...
As I said, I could be wrong. If you would like me to address it more fully, please repost what GT said..
This idea of bring forth comments from days or weeks ago is taxing me po' bairns... :D
It's funny that you are being wishy washy about it now.
I may be many things, but when it comes to LEO issues NO ONE could EVER describe me as 'wishy-washy' :D
In the article I linked to in my first comment about this, there is a video of a retired police chief being interviewed... and he defended the cop.
Cite???
If you want me to answer questions it behooves you to provide as many salient details and FACTS (if you have them) as possible...
EU could BREAK UP the US: Juncker in jaw-dropping threat to Trump over support for Brexit
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/785813/European-Union-EU-boss-threatens-break-up-US-retaliation-Trump-Brexit-support
Take California... Please!! :D
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54218/neil-gorsuch-democrats-filibuster/
But one thing that makes me feel good about the building resistance to Gorsuch is that the Democrats in Congress seem at last to be bridling at the notion that "bipartisanship" is primarily the responsibility of their party, that they don't necessarily have to be the grown-ups in a room where childish vandals roam free, and that, sooner or later, the Republicans have to take responsibility in real time for the damage they do. Chuck Schumer is under no obligation to salve the consciences of the people who stiffed Merrick Garland—and, by the way, there is no requirement that the Supreme Court be "balanced" ideologically—by giving them exactly the result they wanted a year ago.
Touch off the powder for a change.
that they don't necessarily have to be the grown-ups in a room where childish vandals roam free,
Glad to see you admit that the Democrats ARE being childish..
I get it, I really do..
The GOP were big fat meenies, so the Democrats are going to be big fat meenies right back...
The problem for the Dems in that scenario is that it will net them NOTHING... Gorsuch will still be confirmed..
In actuality, it will be WORSE than nothing for the Democrats because they would have needlessly thrown away a weapon that MIGHT be effective for President Trump's next nominee...
Consider what's going to happen if President Trump nominates a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity or a Mitch McConnell to replace Justice Kennedy or Justice Ginsberg..
The Dems won't be able to do a DAMN thing to stop it...
Remind me THEN how the Democrats childish antics at the time was worth it...
That's the problem with Democrats. By and large, they NEVER think long term... The opt for the quickie result and to hell with the future..
One would have thought the Dems would have figured that out with Harry's bonehead play back in 2013...
But that's Democrats for ya... Doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result....
Take California... Please!!
Interesting that you should bring that up, as Rachel Maddow last night covered the fact that Putin has been quietly financing secessionist movements in California and Texas - part of his ongoing 'Make America Weak' campaign.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/nobodys-covering-my-back-ex-fbi-agent-tells-senate-he-doesnt-trust-trump-to-protect-him-from-russia/
“My biggest fear isn’t being on Putin’s hit list or psychological warfare targeting, I’ve been doing that for two years,” Watts explained. “My biggest concern right now is, I don’t know what the American stance is on Russia, and who’s going to take care of me. I mean, after years in the army and the FBI… today I’m going to walk out of here and ain’t nobody going to be covering my back.”
Trump/GOP in power, going along with or actively colluding with Putin and his various gangs, Americans who serve their country are unprotected. Expendable so long as Trumpie gets his money and GOP gets their tax cuts and Trumpers get to sneer at liberals.
Deplorable.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/30/1648707/-Mike-Pence-gleefully-breaks-tie-for-Republicans-takes-away-women-s-health-care
GOP: Traitors, filled top to bottom with shit.
as Rachel Maddow last night covered the fact that Putin has been quietly financing secessionist movements in California and Texas - part of his ongoing 'Make America Weak' campaign.
Yea.. MadCow also had a report on President Trump's tax returns.. :D
Big woop....
Trumpie gets his money, the GOP get their tax cuts and Trumpers get to sneer at liberals.
That's Act 1. In Act 2, they have to defend all that to local constituents.
Kick
delayed response to comment 42 from "Will Dems work with Trump"
See.
You've got the punk attitude in spades.
Even your story about Santa the other day shows you've had it all along... though, you could have made those kids cry even more by telling them that Christmas was embraced to coopt the pagan celebration of the winter solstice... or maybe just confused them.
Sorry about foisting a whole album on you.
It is indeed rastacore.
The first album Bad Brains put out was Rock For Light, and it had more reggae songs... but also harder, less polished hardcore that I thought may be too overwhelming.
Live shows are at the heart of the experience. I spent an hour trying to find live versions with video of some of my favorite songs, but technology back then just couldn't produce decent sound quality. So I resorted to posting a link to a studio album... and even that sounds like crap on my laptop... hopefully you have a better system because I Against I is one of the best albums ever made.
Anyway, here's another favorite (just one song)-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4OlCROoRbc
A
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/dossier-looking-more-credible-all-time
Nobody knows for sure if Millian is genuinely plugged in at high levels, or if he's just a fast-talking huckster. But put all this together and it's easy to see why the Trump-Russia story won't go away. The FBI believes Steele to be credible. In the cases where it's been possible to check out the allegations in the dossier, they've turned out to be true. Other intelligence corroborates much of the alleged Russian activity. And Millian's claims are genuinely explosive.
This isn't going away anytime soon.
Yea.. MadCow also had a report on President Trump's tax returns.. :D Big woop..
Huh. Exactly the same response, almost word-for-word, as the last time I brought up a Rachel piece. I can't blame you, she's been kicking the shit out of Faux News lately, and pointing out all sorts of uncomfortable links between the Trump cartel and the Russians.
Trump's Tax Returns, just one piece of his giant "fuck ethics" pie, will eventually be made public, as will the entire picture of his playing footsie with the Russian gangster-state. It's not a matter of 'if', dude.
5
Yup.
Annoying.
Good luck with that.
A
Re: the filibuster, Democrats need to filibuster Gorsuch, period.
Republicans can't be trusted as far as I could throw the fattest of them and no "promises" they make now will be honored later.
If McConnell goes nuclear, fine. If they put Gorsuch on the court now they need to do it on pure party lines. Make them own it, make them eat it.
You can't negotiate with liars. Democrats are finally grasping this. GOP has gotten away with lying and cheating for years because too many people/institutions were unwilling to call them out for their treachery. The only way to beat them now is to expose, expose, expose them for what they are. They will do damage every step of the way but at least they will do damage in the teeth of opposition instead of acquiescence. The opposition can slow them down and blunt some of their stinking-rotten efforts. And when the administration comes crashing down because it's headed by a criminal-traitor, Democrats won't have to answer for helping them do their dirty work.
Trump's Tax Returns, just one piece of his giant "fuck ethics" pie, will eventually be made public, as will the entire picture of his playing footsie with the Russian gangster-state. It's not a matter of 'if', dude.
Yep..
The tone is IDENTICAL when ya'all were claiming that there never would even BE a President Trump... :D
If McConnell goes nuclear, fine. If they put Gorsuch on the court now they need to do it on pure party lines. Make them own it, make them eat it.
Remind me again how "fine" it is when President Trump nominates a Sean Hannity or a Rush Limbaugh and Democrats will be completely and utterly impotent to stop it.. :D
Always looking at the short term IN YOUR FACE, BITCHES!!! gain now and ignoring the OH FUCK *NOW* WHAT DO WE DO, WE ARE SO FUCKED!!!??? pain that is to come...
It's the Democrat Party way...
It's EXACTLY why we have President Trump...
Altohone,
Yup.
Annoying.
I know, I know.. It's always annoying to be asked to back up claims with facts...
Just spreading the joi :D
Remind me again how "fine" it is when President Trump nominates a Sean Hannity or a Rush Limbaugh and Democrats will be completely and utterly impotent to stop it..
Then you don't remember the Harriet Myers debacle?
Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would be wonderful to see in the confirmation hearings.
"Tell us, Mr. Hannity, what qualifications you have for this position."
Always looking at the short term IN YOUR FACE, BITCHES!!! gain now and ignoring the OH FUCK *NOW* WHAT DO WE DO, WE ARE SO FUCKED!!!??? pain that is to come...
Actually, that sounds like the Republicans right now.
CW,
I think that the filibuster is needed, but it should require actual "filibustering" by the person! They don't work enough as it is, making them DO the job that we sent them to do isn't asking too much! The recent Congresses have had it too easy, and they have worked hard to make it that way. Sadly, it's the only thing they seem to work hard to accomplish.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/03/30/putting-together-the-puzzle-pieces-of-the-unfolding-story-about-russia/
Critiquing President Obama for not forcing the issue and going public with what was known at the time is justifiable. But to do so without placing even greater blame on Mitch McConnell misses an important piece of the puzzle.
When all of our intelligence services are saying that an opponent like Russia is attempting to influence a U.S. election and your response is to say that if the administration goes public with that information you will accuse them of partisan politics, you are demonstrating a willingness to play political games with our democracy. But then, this is the same guy who, in the midst of the Great Recession, said that making Obama a one-term president was his number one goal. Neither the welfare of the American people nor our democracy has ever been a priority for Mitch McConnell. That is deplorable.
Republicans: party before country.
22
You cut and pasted two parts of my comment to avoid doing it once... and you want me to cite your own words.
I'm not qualified to treat what ails you.
Don't go all Hillary on me and blame others for your own problems.
A
Then you don't remember the Harriet Myers debacle?
No.. YA'ALL don't remember the Harriet Myers debacle...
Because THIS time around, Democrats won't be able to STOP IT....
Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would be wonderful to see in the confirmation hearings.
And, if I had said Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh then you would have a point.
But I didn't, so you don't...
You cut and pasted two parts of my comment to avoid doing it once... and you want me to cite your own words.
No, I want you to cite exactly what comment of mine you are commenting on so I can know EXACTLY what you are talking about...
But hay.. If YOU don't know exactly what you are talking about, that's fine.. :D
When all of our intelligence services are saying that an opponent like Russia is attempting to influence a U.S. election
NO ONE has ever denied Russia was trying to influence US elections..
That *ALWAYS* happens..
Just like the US tries to influence other country's elections..
"DOOOYYYYYYY"
-Vanillope Von Schweetz...
Ya'all's problem is that there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Russia *DID* influence the election and there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Team Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election..
What part of ***NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THE ACCUSATIONS*** do you not understand???
Don't go all Hillary on me and blame others for your own problems.
Hay now.. There is no call to get nasty....
:D
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/30/1648888/-Flynn-in-Sept-2016-When-you-re-given-immunity-that-probably-means-you-ve-committed-a-crime
Flynn thought it was just shameful that Hillary's staff was given immunity in order to testify in for their witch hunt. But now that he's in the hot seat, well, immunity looks pretty good. Of course, Hillary's team was innocent.
That's how Republicans roll. My fantasy is that Trump, once it's clear he's in deep trouble, turns around and throws the other Republicans to the wolves in exchange for being allowed to step down rather than face prison. That's his usual MO and why should he depart from his long-running pattern? I'd actually rather see Pence, McConnell, Ryan and Priebus go down, if I had my 'druthers. Trump can sail off into the sunset to die whenever his bad diet catches up with him, despised by all except his deplorable fans. He will have done this nation a great service by exposing to the entire world the rot that is the GOP.
Well, I'd like to see Bannon, Stone and Manafort in jail too. And Flynn.
But then, Flynn is probably just asking for immunity in the automatic way lawyers advise people to do. Which, of course, for Repubs is just "prudence", but for Democrats, means "they're guilty!!!!"
At least, according to Flynn.
The Democrats must learn through pain, specifically the agony of watching Neil Gorsuch take the seat that they stompy-feet insist belongs to Merrick Garland. For too long, they’ve packed the bench with liberal partisans committed to exercising raw power as an end-run around democracy and the Constitution. Well, if raw power is the rule, then they need to choke on it. And we should laugh at their pain even as we amplify it via the Nuclear Option.
Thank you, Harry Reid! You'll never know how much we appreciate you taking time away from your bizarre relationship with your NordicTrack dominatrix to instigate the glorious Reid Rule and thereby surrender the one tool Chuck Schumer and his band of merry losers had to derail the oncoming train that is a yugely conservative SCOTUS. Oh Harry, your corruption and general unpleasantness make it so much sweeter knowing that you will only be remembered, if at all, for allowing Republicans to repopulate the Supreme Court with right-wing justices. Thanks to you, the liberals have squandered their best chance to fundamentally transform America from a constitutional republic into a huggy, libfascist dictatorship.
Oh yes, the Republicans must use the Nuclear Option. Nuke the site from orbit – it’s the only way to be sure that we have at least a couple decades before Chelsea, or whichever other quarter-wit dynastic Democrat cheats its way into the Oval Office, and can eliminate our First, Second, and probably Third Amendment rights. With Democrats, the only Constitutional rights that are safe are the ones that appear nowhere in the text, and it is open season on the ones that do. Except for the Fifth Amendment – Democrats love that one.
Somewhere along the line, the left decided that judges were a convenient shortcut to avoid the unpleasant hassle of actually passing laws through the legislative process. To them, the Constitution is not a glorious barrier to government overreach – or, rather, the fact that it is one is a bug, not a feature. To them, our Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, and any given law should be applied, if at all, only in the manner most conducive to what liberals want right this minute. Tell me what Democrat appointed a given judge in a political case and I will tell you how he will vote with 99% accuracy. No, I don't have some sort of psychic ability. I just pay attention.
If you don't believe me, read the Ninth Circuit’s decision interpreting the president’s powers to exclude aliens under the applicable statute. You'll find something missing, something significant: any mention of the applicable statute. You aren’t interpreting the law if you neglect to ever mention the law you’re allegedly interpreting. What you're really doing is exercising raw power in the service of your whims.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/03/30/nuke-em-til-they-glow-n2305926
Yep, yep, yep....
Just let me add...
I agree solely and completely with the points in the above article.. There are MANY good points in the entire article, not just the points I posted..
The tone?? Well, that's a bit nasty, even for my tastes.. :D
But this is the environment the Left Whinery has created for the last 8 years...
Tis sad, tis true.... Tis true, tis sad....
What part of ***NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THE ACCUSATIONS*** do you not understand???
Still waiting for an answer to that one..
Don't be shy.. Anyone can chime in.. :D
The simple FACT is that there are absolutely **NO FACTS** to support ya'all's accusations against Team Trump vis a vis the election or collusion with Russians..
Let me repeat that for the cheap seats..
***NO*** ***FACTS***
None... Zero... Zilch.... Nada.... Nuttin' Honey....
This entire sad affair has been a total and complete pile of horseshit, courtesy of FORMER president Odumbo and his merry band of Dumbocrats...
That is all....
Trump can sail off into the sunset to die whenever his bad diet catches up with him, despised by all except his deplorable fans. He will have done this nation a great service by exposing to the entire world the rot that is the GOP
Yea... NO hatred there, eh? :^/
Yer just pissed because President Trump totally devastated yer totally corrupt and totally incompetent hero....
Wiped the kitchen floor with her.. :D
Which brings up an interesting point..
Ya'all have denigrated President Trump time and again because he has a small percentage of businesses that have failed..
So, if President Trump is a "luser" because he has failed a few times, then NOT-45 is a total and complete luser because she has failed EVERY TIME she ran for POTUS...
Applying your own argument... :D
OR....
Or ya'all can just agree with me and concede reality...
That, just because a person has failed once or twice in their lives, doesn't mean they are a failure...
Ya'all's problem is that there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Russia *DID* influence the election and there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Team Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election..
What part of ***NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THE ACCUSATIONS*** do you not understand???
Whooaaaa
Latest WikiLeaks release shows how the CIA uses computer code to hide the origins of its hacking attacks and 'disguise them as Russian or Chinese activity'
WikiLeaks published 676 source code files today which it claimed are from CIA
It says the CIA disguised its own hacking attacks to make it appear those responsible were Russian, Chinese, Iranian or North Korean
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html#ixzz4cugK2B00
Now we come to find out that the CIA has the capability to hack and make it look like the Russians did it..
Now everything is becoming clear... :D
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/reporters-mock-gold-white-house-easter-eggs-silent-obama-sold/
The moronic-ness of the Left Whinery knows no depth... :^/
all such procedures are agreed upon by the Senate as their first order of business after a new Congress is seated
I don't think so. I think the Senate deems itself to be continuously in existence: there is no new Senate, just a continuation of the old Senate. So the rules don't need to be re-adopted.
I think it's unconstitutional for the Senate to say that the Senate can't make changes to its own rules any more. The Constitution says it can make its own rules, so it still can, even if it says it can't. Anything in the Constitution can be changed only by an amendment, not a Senate rule.
Now we come to find out that the CIA has the capability to hack and make it look like the Russians did it..
Now everything is becoming clear... :D
so, the trump administration's connections to russia are really a CIA plot?
Oh, now I see what you're saying. It had to be Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick.
~lt. kaffee
so, the trump administration's connections to russia are really a CIA plot?
What "connections" would those be???
Beyond what's normal for an incoming administration and normal for every day business??
'sides, it was ya'all who scoffed at the idea that Russia was an adversary...
Of course, THAT was until it was politically convenient to make Russia the bogey-man....
And we go back to comment #37 which NO ONE can address...
Ya'all's problem is that there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Russia *DID* influence the election and there are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that Team Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election..
What part of ***NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THE ACCUSATIONS*** do you not understand???
Oh, now I see what you're saying. It had to be Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick.
~lt. kaffee
I'm so proud {sniffle}
:D
But then, Flynn is probably just asking for immunity in the automatic way lawyers advise people to do. Which, of course, for Repubs is just "prudence", but for Democrats, means "they're guilty!!!!"
So, you and I are in agreement...
If a person needs immunity, it's obvious they committed some crime...
I am glad we can find common ground on this subject...
:D
goode trickle [2] -
Excellent comment all around, just wanted to start with that.
On the Stones song, though (seems we're all in a musical frame of mind this week...), what I've always found somewhat head-scratching is that from what I've always understood, that song is about heroin addiction. To hear in played at Trump rallies in NH was particularly jarring.
Here's just one partial explanation of some of the lyrics:
https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Meaning-of-a-Song
Don't know what the truth is, but again, I've always understood the song's about heroin addiction -- a strange choice indeed for a political theme song, no?
But then most people don't care. Look at how many times "American Woman" and "Fortunate Son" are used in commericals as pro-USA songs, when they're both almost exactly the opposite, pointing out America's shortcomings...
-CW
michale [3] -
OK, have to say I was thinking about you and your recent comments while writing this. Credit due, although "thinking about" should be read as "disproving" here.
OK, if as you posit Trump becomes very unpopular then the filibuster won't even be necessary, because 3 GOP senators will vote against his pick.
Problem solved!
Seriously, though, I don't think Dems have anything to lose by doing it now versus then. Senate power and the Oval Office go back and forth, and in the future, Dems will benefit from dropping this particular nuke.
OMG... an actual compliment at the end, there?
Heh.
Well, truth be told, I did indeed write this in a very analytic (and non-partisan) frame of mind. I specifically didn't take much of a position on getting rid of the legislative filibuster because I wanted to hear what others thought on the matter. I just laid it out as a real possibility after the SCOTUS nuke gets dropped.
-CW
michale [8] -
OK, here's a question for you. If Dems followed your advice, and then Trump got to replace RBG, when Dems filibustered his pick in what universe do you think McConnell wouldn't drop the nuke then?
I mean, seriously, do you really think McConnell would hesitate a nanosecond to do so? I don't. So it really makes no difference, in the end.
michale [36] -
I found the tone a bit annoying, but then I thought you posted it solely for the "Aliens" quote in the middle there... "it's the only way to be sure..."
Heh.
dsws [43] -
I think the Constitution just basically says "the House and Senate operate under rules they set up" or something equally as vague.
It can be argued that the rules are too tight in Congress, but then again when you look at where our parent country went with that sort of thing, maybe it's not so bad. Ever seen the British Parliament? It's like watching kindergarteners at recess, at times...
michale [46] -
Wait, so you're saying Flynn did probably commit a crime? So what do you think that crime was? Inquiring minds want to know...
-CW