Now that dingey Harry is about to forever alter the country by tossing the filibuster out the window, what are the implications for America moving forward?

I see wild and frequent policy changes happening quite often as wave elections are happening more often. Where the Senate used to be the cooling mechanism to the House, now they will be nothing more than a rubber stamp.

It is not hard to see a Republican controlled government passing national right to work, privatizing S.S and Medicare, repealing Obamacare, implementing huge tax cuts and so on.

On the flip side it is not hard to see Democrat controlled government passing Card Check labor laws, amnesty for all immigrants, big tax increases, huge regulation, increased contributions to S.S, socialized medicine and other liberal priorities.

All of these things represent seismic shifts in American policy making, and yet we could see them changing every 4-8 years depending on who controls the levers of government.

The big prize, and what is precipitating this fight is the Supereme Court. With no filibuster either party will be able to pack the court with super young justices to essentially lock in their ideology for 30-40 years. Right now we have the conservative block ruling the court which has been wildly pro business. Were Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency it is not inconcievable that with a Democrat senate she would be able to replace Scalia/Kennedy and Ginsburg with 50 year old liberal justices that would usher in a new progressive era that couldn't be undone for 25-30 years because of a solid liberal block on the court. The same goes with a Republican being able to appoint justices to continue the current conservative court while also repealing Roe and making abortion illegal.

I think the filibuster thing has flown under the radar, but that we are close to what will be a seminal moment in American history as it is about to go.

I hate seeing it go, but at the same time it has been perverted by both sides from its original intent and is now nothing more than a tool to obstruct and nullify laws/agencies they don't like. That is no way to run a government.

Everyone needs to strap in though because the stability that America has been known for as far as its institutions go is not far from being turned on its ear.

Is there a compelling reason that the Senate must be just like the House of Representatives? The fact that they are more deliberate is a good thing. Why is it so tough to craft legislation that passes filibusters? Seems like Harry is taking the easy way out.

I agree with most of Iggy's points about wave election changes and most importantly, the SCOTUS make-up. Strange days, indeed, for the Senate...and our future.

I thought I read in an article that it would only affect nominations and appointments, not legislation.

This plan only serves to highlight Harry's complete lack of leadership, and will bite him in the ass hard come January 2015.

tk421;1471426 wrote:I thought I read in an article that it would only affect nominations and appointments, not legislation.

Mitch has already said future Republican majorities will extend it to everything,

I think secretly he is doing cartwheels because he would have done this anyway himself when they took back power, but at least Harry is taking the fall for him now so he can forever be able to tell everyone "they started it".

Why is it so tough to craft legislation that passes filibusters?

Part of the problem is that Mitch has said they won't allow anyone to be nominated and passed for the Consumer Financial Protection agency as well as the NLRB.

They don't believe in either agency, and have found they can essentially nullify them by just refusing to confirm a head of them, which makes it impossible to function.

There is no way around problems like that, which had never really existed before as it has never really happened.

IggyPride00;1471526 wrote: There is no way around problems like that, which had never really existed before as it has never really happened.

All a bunch of BS. It's convenient to blame the filibuster for a lack of leadership and accomplishment. As was mentioned, is something really that good of an idea if it can't get 60 votes? It's not like we are talking a 100% agreement - 60 votes from two mostly identical parties.

In fact, it's actually rather impressive how Harry Reid has manipulated cloture to try to hide the fact he's been the most partisan SML in recent history. Harry Reid - not the Repubs - is the reason for the seemingly huge spike in "fillibuster" and gridlock. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have pointed the finger across the aisle more than anyone in recent history while pretending to be reasonable and compromising = gigantic frauds. They are career politicians with lots of talent for demagoguery and otherwise offer very little from their service.

gut;1471900 wrote:All a bunch of BS. It's convenient to blame the filibuster for a lack of leadership and accomplishment. As was mentioned, is something really that good of an idea if it can't get 60 votes? It's not like we are talking a 100% agreement - 60 votes from two mostly identical parties.

In fact, it's actually rather impressive how Harry Reid has manipulated cloture to try to hide the fact he's been the most partisan SML in recent history. Harry Reid - not the Repubs - is the reason for the seemingly huge spike in "fillibuster" and gridlock. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have pointed the finger across the aisle more than anyone in recent history while pretending to be reasonable and compromising = gigantic frauds. They are career politicians with lots of talent for demagoguery and otherwise offer very little from their service.

1. The Parties are not anywhere close to identical on most issues. Stop pretending like Mitch McConnell was there to be reasoned with. His goal was and is to obstruct Obama. Republicans are punished more when they attempt to attempt to compromise with Obama and the democrats. Rubio has basically been excommunicated over the gang of eight bill. Pat Toomey is seen as a traitor over background checks. C'mon man!

2. The lengths you will go to absolve Republicans in the Senate for their unprecedented use of the Filibuster and threats of Filibuster (which precipitates the use of cloture) is really impressive. They weren't filibustering to keep constructive debate going. They were filibustering to obstruct, plain and simple and that is why cloture has been invoked. But, yeah I suppose it would be a good idea to let Republicans ramble on for more than 30 hours about how we shouldn't consent to Obama's communist appointees:rolleyes:

3. You should be happy. Harry is going to nuke the filibuster just in time for the Senate to have a Republican majority.

BS you do realize your last post was 0% fact and 100% your opinion right?

BoatShoes;1471993 wrote: 2. The lengths you will go to absolve Republicans in the Senate for their unprecedented use of the Filibuster and threats of Filibuster (which precipitates the use of cloture) is really impressive.

I've explained this before. You should do some research. Harry Reid can call for a cloture vote whether or not anyone has come forward to fillibuster - cloture limits debate to 30 hours on pending matters. So it is flat wrong to cite cloture numbers as calling an end to legit fillibusters (although often a party merely has to threaten, and not actually fillibuster). But if cloture fails to pass, Reid can table the legislation basically killing it.

He has called for a record number of cloture votes by a huge margin. It's clearly a tool he uses to avoid members going on record with a vote while being able to blame the Repubs. Evidence of Reid's manipulation of the cloture vote is the fact that a historically larger percentage of these votes pass, I think about double the historical rate.

It's a way Reid has manipulated the agenda, both to make Repubs out as the bad guy for legislation that wouldn't pass anyway (and keep Dems off record on a vote) and presumably anything he doesn't want to pass that has less than 60 votes. Additionally, failing to get a cloture vote doesn't mean you can't move forward with debate, however Reid uses that to kill the legislation

Now legit cloture votes are up, and that is largely in response to Dem's tactics to "fill the tree" (also a record by wide margin under Reid's leadership) and prevent Repubs from offering up amendments.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

[/URL]Note the spike in 2007 when Dems had a near supermajority and Reid became SML. It was a manner designed to ramrod legislation and limit debate. But note also the spike on votes held and cloture invoked. The data overwhelmingly shows Reid abusing the filing of cloture. It declined only slightly in 2010-11 when the Dems no longer had a strong majority.

And it pre-dates Obama, so I guess you're wrong about that, too.

gut;1472252 wrote:I've explained this before. You should do some research. Harry Reid can call for a cloture vote whether or not anyone has come forward to fillibuster - cloture limits debate to 30 hours on pending matters. So it is flat wrong to cite cloture numbers as calling an end to legit fillibusters (although often a party merely has to threaten, and not actually fillibuster). But if cloture fails to pass, Reid can table the legislation basically killing it.

He has called for a record number of cloture votes by a huge margin. It's clearly a tool he uses to avoid members going on record with a vote while being able to blame the Repubs. Evidence of Reid's manipulation of the cloture vote is the fact that a historically larger percentage of these votes pass, I think about double the historical rate.

It's a way Reid has manipulated the agenda, both to make Repubs out as the bad guy for legislation that wouldn't pass anyway (and keep Dems off record on a vote) and presumably anything he doesn't want to pass that has less than 60 votes. Additionally, failing to get a cloture vote doesn't mean you can't move forward with debate, however Reid uses that to kill the legislation

Now legit cloture votes are up, and that is largely in response to Dem's tactics to "fill the tree" (also a record by wide margin under Reid's leadership) and prevent Repubs from offering up amendments.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

Note the spike in 2007 when Dems had a near supermajority and Reid became SML. It was a manner designed to ramrod legislation and limit debate. But note also the spike on votes held and cloture invoked. The data overwhelmingly shows Reid abusing the filing of cloture. It declined only slightly in 2010-11 when the Dems no longer had a strong majority.

And it pre-dates Obama, so I guess you're wrong about that, too.

Class dismissed, kids. :thumbup:

gut;1472252 wrote:I've explained this before. You should do some research. Harry Reid can call for a cloture vote whether or not anyone has come forward to fillibuster - cloture limits debate to 30 hours on pending matters. So it is flat wrong to cite cloture numbers as calling an end to legit fillibusters (although often a party merely has to threaten, and not actually fillibuster). But if cloture fails to pass, Reid can table the legislation basically killing it.

He has called for a record number of cloture votes by a huge margin. It's clearly a tool he uses to avoid members going on record with a vote while being able to blame the Repubs. Evidence of Reid's manipulation of the cloture vote is the fact that a historically larger percentage of these votes pass, I think about double the historical rate.

Yes and your "explanation" proved wanting then as it does now. The bolded part proves my point Gut. Why has he called for a record number of cloture votes? Because of the record use of the filibuster by the Republicans. If there was no threat of filibuster he would not be calling for cloture votes. You acknowledge that the Republicans need not engage in the actual filibuster as we have the "friendly filibuster" and understood threats of filibuster that give rise to cloture votes are how the use of the filibuster has been measured over time.

The frequency of filibusters – plus threats to use them – are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.

The fact that cloture votes are being called for in record numbers are prima facie evidence of the Republican party's abuse of the filibuster procedure.

A motion for cloture is filed not only to overcome filibusters in progress, but also to preempt ones that are only anticipated

"Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate"

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

You act like Harry Reid only calls for cloture votes because Republicans have honest, good-faith testimony to be heard and debate to be had above and beyond 30 hours for the minor Obama appointees that they oppose but carry on. :rolleyes:

By virtue of the way things work in the Senate, your acknowledging the record number of cloture votes is in fact acknowledging the unprecedented abuse of the ability to filibuster by the GOP. :thumbup:

fish82;1472551 wrote:Class dismissed, kids. :thumbup:

I know. Pretty neat how Gut actually wins the argument for me by complaining about the amount of cloture votes when the use of the filibuster is measured by cloture votes. :thumbup:

jmog;1472025 wrote:BS you do realize your last post was 0% fact and 100% your opinion right?

Truth-tracking opinion.

BoatShoes;1472649 wrote:I know. Pretty neat how Gut actually wins the argument for me by complaining about the amount of cloture votes when the use of the filibuster is measured by cloture votes. :thumbup: