"I cannot support such a perilous course of action."

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
6,512
5,970
1
Honestly, I try not to lose sight of the fact that the filibuster is not a constitutional device, but rather a creature of the historic traditions of the senate, and the senate can do with it what it pleases (of course, following their rules).

Honestly, I think the only reason that it's still around is that it gives enormous power to individual senators, and senators from both parties like that fact. Sure, it's a bulwark against hyperdemocracy, but from my perspective, it's a level of power that goes well beyond the checks and balances that the founders felt were sufficient to guard against majority faction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fbh1

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
6,512
5,970
1
But it was ok to do to shove NG, BK, and ACB down our ****ing throats? Typical hypothetical Repug.
not to get too much into whataboutism but just as it was ok to do with O's appellate nominees.

As noted, the senate controls its rules.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
6,512
5,970
1
So appellate nominees are equal to SCOTUS? Ok…
why yes, yes they are. they are appointed for life, and they hear a hell of a lot more cases than scotus does in this country. as a practical matter, they are the court of last resort for most people and businesses. and as a matter of confirmation, the process is identical. or it least it's identical in a post Gorsuch world
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
3,474
7,441
1
That's what a real American says about nuking the Senate filibuster.

The other 48 democratic senators are traitors.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...r-plan-manchin-fired-off-another-kil-n2601837

Love it. Dem-Mediacrat heads exploding right and left. Senile Joe drooling all over his teleprompter as he howls in rage...all of it of course scripted by his puppeteers. Hell, the propaganda organs don't know whether to shit or wind their wrist watches. What a show!

The delightful irony is that the usual campaign of smears and lies that Dem-Media employs in these cases not only can't work...but make the Party's predicament work. Hell, Manchin as much as told them: Go ahead, keep pushing, and I'll see whether the Republicans have room for me. As for Sinema, maybe the Wokeists can chase her into another bathroom and see how that works out.

Yes, by gum,, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are heroes of democracy holding the line against Dem-Media fascism. There should be statues erected to them...in the exact locations where the Wokeists tore down the previous statues. BWAHAAAHAAA!
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
98,490
50,470
1
But it was ok to do to shove NG, BK, and ACB down our ****ing throats? Typical hypothetical Repug.

You have no one to thank but Harry Reid. He was the very first to crack the dam.

Go ahead. Go nuclear again. Set another precedent that will come right back and bite you in the ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13 and Ski

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,757
21,376
1
why yes, yes they are. they are appointed for life, and they hear a hell of a lot more cases than scotus does in this country. as a practical matter, they are the court of last resort for most people and businesses. and as a matter of confirmation, the process is identical. or it least it's identical in a post Gorsuch world
Lol. When @Treelion66 allows his emotions to get himself schooled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy and m.knox

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
3,474
7,441
1
why yes, yes they are. they are appointed for life, and they hear a hell of a lot more cases than scotus does in this country. as a practical matter, they are the court of last resort for most people and businesses.

Good point.

Beyond that, the fact is that Dem-Media changed the rules to suit its purposes on judges and then got all indignant when Republicans changed the rules again to expand on the Dem-Media change. Like, didn't you people know that only Dem-Media is allowed to change the rules? Right.

Also, leave it to Dem-Media to now racialize the filibuster by trying to turn one's position on it into a litmus test of opposition to (imaginary) white supremacy. The Dem-Media Party is truly sick in the head. Fascist to the rotten core.

Meanwhile, Dem-Media resorted to a filibuster only yesterday -- that's right...yesterday -- to thwart a Republican bill to impose sanctions on a Russian pipeline company. True story. Yup, Dem-Media used this racist legislative tool to protect big bad Moscow. Look it up.

Dem-Media is lying scum. And after one year of Senile Joe's disastrous presidency, the only people affiliating themselves with Dem-Media are either hopeless fools or scum themselves. I actually put most libs here in the first category...because I'm a charitable Christian person.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
98,490
50,470
1
The root cause here, of course, is that he likely has very substantially different ideas of what a federal judge is supposed to do than you and I.

Almost. He has a very different idea on who should be a supreme court judge, and it ain't anyone from the other side.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
6,512
5,970
1
Good point.

Beyond that, the fact is that Dem-Media changed the rules to suit its purposes on judges and then got all indignant when Republicans changed the rules again to expand on the Dem-Media change. Like, didn't you people know that only Dem-Media is allowed to change the rules? Right.

Also, leave it to Dem-Media to now racialize the filibuster by trying to turn one's position on it into a litmus test of opposition to (imaginary) white supremacy. The Dem-Media Party is truly sick in the head. Fascist to the rotten core.

Meanwhile, Dem-Media resorted to a filibuster only yesterday -- that's right...yesterday -- to thwart a Republican bill to impose sanctions on a Russian pipeline company. True story. Yup, Dem-Media used this racist legislative tool to protect big bad Moscow. Look it up.

Dem-Media is lying scum. And after one year of Senile Joe's disastrous presidency, the only people affiliating themselves with Dem-Media are either hopeless fools or scum themselves. I actually put most libs here in the first category...because I'm a charitable Christian person.
Jerry, relax man, it suits you.

Every senator loves the filibuster at the end of the day. Every president hates it. The only reasons that they're even considering carving out exceptions now are (i) they know that there's a world of hurt coming in the 2022 elections and this is their counterweight to redistricting, (ii) there is a world of hurt coming in 2022 and so they need to appeal to their base, and (iii) voting rights filibuster exceptions don't affect senators' ability to use it to stick things into approps and spending bills to pay off their friends. So either way, they know there's a world of hurt coming in the 2022 elections.

As I said, setting aside the near term context, I'm technically indifferent to what the Senate does to the filibuster, and maybe even a little opposed to it in the abstract.
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
3,503
1,201
1
You have no one to thank but Harry Reid. He was the very first to crack the dam.

Go ahead. Go nuclear again. Set another precedent that will come right back and bite you in the ass.
To be accurate, the "rule" has been changed quite often. It's why we have reconciliation and the means to extend the debt limit.
 

We_Are

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,032
2,330
1
Honestly, I try not to lose sight of the fact that the filibuster is not a constitutional device, but rather a creature of the historic traditions of the senate, and the senate can do with it what it pleases (of course, following their rules).

Honestly, I think the only reason that it's still around is that it gives enormous power to individual senators, and senators from both parties like that fact. Sure, it's a bulwark against hyperdemocracy, but from my perspective, it's a level of power that goes well beyond the checks and balances that the founders felt were sufficient to guard against majority faction
I disagree and feel it will be a sad day when the filibuster dies...which I am guessing it will the next time Democrats actually hold a majority in the Senate.

In the last 10 years, without the filibuster, we would have had Obamacare passed then repealed and we would have had Trump's tax act passed then most likely repealed....whether you believe in their merit or not, both pieces of legislation had massive consequences/disruptions on the growth & profitability businesses and the personal lives of millions of Americans.

Knee Jerk, simple majority rules legislation would make America less stable as our legislation process became much like the current "ping-pong" process of executive action.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,999
5,708
1
I disagree and feel it will be a sad day when the filibuster dies...which I am guessing it will the next time Democrats actually hold a majority in the Senate.

In the last 10 years, without the filibuster, we would have had Obamacare passed then repealed and we would have had Trump's tax act passed then most likely repealed....whether you believe in their merit or not, both pieces of legislation had massive consequences/disruptions on the growth & profitability businesses and the personal lives of millions of Americans.

Knee Jerk, simple majority rules legislation would make America less stable as our legislation process became much like the current "ping-pong" process of executive action.

This is spot on. The party with a slight majority in the Senate could swing the entire country toward an extremism that would actually be voted down if put in front of voters directly. That's because the people in the middle want neither, but get pulled to whichever side gets the slight majority.

In other words, the independents and libertarians never get represented. I think of the Middle Class. Extremism in either direction tends to reduce the size and prosperity of the Middle Class. These are the people that do the work to support both the elites and those made to become dependent on government handouts.

I think of the pandemic. Elites were made rich by having the Federal Reserve print money. At the same time money was handed out to people, reducing the need for many people to work, and taxing anyone holding assets in the currency. The result now becomes debt, inflation, and/or taxes that will burden the Middle Class -- the producers of real wealth -- the people whose voice is becoming lost to the extremists.

The filibuster protects our democracy. It prevents fascism from either side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
6,512
5,970
1
I disagree and feel it will be a sad day when the filibuster dies...which I am guessing it will the next time Democrats actually hold a majority in the Senate.

In the last 10 years, without the filibuster, we would have had Obamacare passed then repealed and we would have had Trump's tax act passed then most likely repealed....whether you believe in their merit or not, both pieces of legislation had massive consequences/disruptions on the growth & profitability businesses and the personal lives of millions of Americans.

Knee Jerk, simple majority rules legislation would make America less stable as our legislation process became much like the current "ping-pong" process of executive action.
Well, realistically that outcome is likely only where one party is so bad they lose both houses and the presidency. Which is probably a signal of majority consensus
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
3,474
7,441
1
Jerry, relax man, it suits you.

Every senator loves the filibuster at the end of the day. Every president hates it. The only reasons that they're even considering carving out exceptions now are (i) they know that there's a world of hurt coming in the 2022 elections and this is their counterweight to redistricting, (ii) there is a world of hurt coming in 2022 and so they need to appeal to their base, and (iii) voting rights filibuster exceptions don't affect senators' ability to use it to stick things into approps and spending bills to pay off their friends. So either way, they know there's a world of hurt coming in the 2022 elections.

As I said, setting aside the near term context, I'm technically indifferent to what the Senate does to the filibuster, and maybe even a little opposed to it in the abstract.

Aard, the only reason they're considering carving out exceptions now is that Dem-Media needs to legalize vote cheating, er, I'm sorry, I mean "voting rights reform" to keep their corrupt Party in office for the next 10,000 years.

As for "relaxing," listen, any patriotic American who is "relaxed" after one year of Senile Joe's fascist presidency hasn't been paying attention.

Regarding the filibuster, ordinarily, in times of sanity, I would think it's a monstrosity...the product of a bygone age. But we don't live in times of sanity. And as it happens, it's now the only thing separating us from a number of harebrained Dem-Media schemes...to include repealing federalism and packing the Supreme Court. So mark me down as a big fan of the filibuster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox and Ski

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
6,512
5,970
1
Aard, the only reason they're considering carving out exceptions now is that Dem-Media needs to legalize vote cheating, er, I'm sorry, I mean "voting rights reform" to keep their corrupt Party in office for the next 10,000 years.

As for "relaxing," listen, any patriotic American who is "relaxed" after one year of Senile Joe's fascist presidency hasn't been paying attention.

Regarding the filibuster, ordinarily, in times of sanity, I would think it's a monstrosity...the product of a bygone age. But we don't live in times of sanity. And as it happens, it's now the only thing separating us from a number of harebrained Dem-Media schemes...to include repealing federalism and packing the Supreme Court. So mark me down as a big fan of the filibuster.
While I think you and I are ultimately very much on the same page in terms of substantive policy, This is a good illustration of how we differ. I think you’re a little more outcome determinative than me. I’m a little more of a process-file. And I think it’s important that we reorient people to the rationale and importance of that process so we can return to a healthier form of pluralism.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
3,474
7,441
1
While I think you and I are ultimately very much on the same page in terms of substantive policy, This is a good illustration of how we differ. I think you’re a little more outcome determinative than me. I’m a little more of a process-file. And I think it’s important that we reorient people to the rationale and importance of that process so we can return to a healthier form of pluralism.

Totally respectable point of view and in times of sanity, I'd agree with you.

Process is very important. But only when both sides have the same starting and ending points, the same general norms, and the same general values which is no longer the case.

When one side chucks out the rules and the other side plays by them, the side playing by them is going to lose.

When the bureaucrats asked Reagan for his strategy in dealing with the Soviet Union, he replied: We win...they lose.

The Dem-Media Party and its Wokeist foot soldiers are playing for keeps. Their aim is to win. The objective of corporate Republicans appears to be to lose...only more slowly and with dignity...and they're succeeding all too well.
 

We_Are

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,032
2,330
1
Well, realistically that outcome is likely only where one party is so bad they lose both houses and the presidency. Which is probably a signal of majority consensus
That scenario has occurred at some point for every POTUS since Clinton... It is also the reason that the filibuster has become more common, and in my opinion, important. The bitching is only coming from the majority party...now that they are the majority party.