General Discussion

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)

17. You've answered your own objections within your own post

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:55 PM

Nov 2013

Political wishes are one thing. political realities are another. It was precisely after many rounds of negotiations and threats and unprecedented when reducing cloture requirements to 51 votes was politically tenable.

Your description of "half-assed" sort of ignores the fact that removing supreme court and legislative filibuster would accomplish nothing in this session.

Obama and team have every reason to believe there will be no new U.S. supreme Court vacancies, and nothing Senate passes is going to pass the house, so the likelihood is anything the house would vote for is something that could pass 60 seat majority.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are you for or against the senate rule change making it easier to confirm Presidential appointees? [View all] stevenleser Nov 2013 OP

All for it. HappyMe Nov 2013 #1

Mostly for it. ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #2

Didn't go far enough. Xipe Totec Nov 2013 #3

I'm for it in these circumstances. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #4

I'd wish they'd gone whole hog on the filibuster but this is a good start. n/t winter is coming Nov 2013 #5

For it. Always have been. William769 Nov 2013 #6

Mostly but now the GOP will have this if God forbid the get power. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #7

For. moondust Nov 2013 #8

For it, but it is a great example of what sucks about the Democratic Party "Leadership". Egalitarian Thug Nov 2013 #9

You've answered your own objections within your own post Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #17

Ask me in 3 years. nt LittleBlue Nov 2013 #10

Cabinet Level Officers zipplewrath Nov 2013 #11

As someone who has followed politics for 30+ years I have this to say LynneSin Nov 2013 #12

Just make the talking filibuster permanent. NuclearDem Nov 2013 #13

Just remember this when the GOP holds the White House OmahaBlueDog Nov 2013 #14

SCOTUS is not included in this rule change. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #18

But the precedent has been set OmahaBlueDog Nov 2013 #19

The reps will hold the WH and Senate again, Skip Intro Nov 2013 #22

Its already open warfare. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #23

Well don't celebrate just yet CreekDog Nov 2013 #24

I love his use of the word "us" Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #27

LOL Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #25

I agree. That could happen by 2050. It won't... Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #26

Well we can hope. Skip Intro Nov 2013 #28

Using "shortsightedness" assumes Senate Dems haven't game planned Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #33

Maybe. n/t Skip Intro Nov 2013 #41

Elections have consequences. nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #15

How not have this rule used against us is NEVER to allow a Republican majority Senate to begin with! ancianita Nov 2013 #16

I am kinda for it, but not really sure. Xyzse Nov 2013 #20

Not sure. Rex Nov 2013 #21

All of those yes votes better keep mum in a few years... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #29

Hahaha. You again. You mad, bro? Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #34

What's to be mad about? Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #36

This creates true majority rule. What we think happens when we're in civics class Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #37

It was necessary. kentuck Nov 2013 #30

Back when Bill Frist threatened the Nuclear Option in 2003, I was against it. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #31

For it, (D)s don't really block appointments anyways Motown_Johnny Nov 2013 #32

For it, now Spirochete Nov 2013 #35

I'm for it because I know they wouldn't have waited this long to do it to us as soon as they got the Arcanetrance Nov 2013 #38

I'm against the change generally. Hosnon Nov 2013 #39

abusive use of filibuster can NOT be tolerated beachbum bob Nov 2013 #40