Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 27, 2016

Senate Republicans are wary of making a historic move to nix the filibuster despite growing pressure from conservatives. Roughly two weeks after Donald Trump's White House win, GOP lawmakers are already facing calls to overhaul Senate rules and help push through the real estate mogul's agenda. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who led a task force to review potential rule changes, said there isn't "very much" of an appetite to overhaul the filibuster. "I think most Republicans understand that the Senate is not an institution to impose the majority's will on the country. It's the one institution in the country that's capable of developing consensus," he said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Funny how the "Conservatives", the people who lament government over-reach and power the loudest, are the ones most willing to go to extremes to use it to foist their ------ ideas on the rest of us.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Good. I like consensus.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 04:06 PM | Reply

Dems should embrace some of their Republican counterparts:

Ted Cruz said SCOTUS could function with 8 (or less) judges.

Mitch McConnell said this appointment is too important for the President to make it; we should wait for the "next" President.

Republicans have already admitted, by their actions, at least 23% of a President's term doesn't matter. Why should 23% be the limit? Why not 93%? Or 100%?

Precedent, and all.

Of course, as soon as Dems do any of the above, the filibuster is gone.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I thought Dems were weary of that first.

I'd support term limits for SCOTUS judges so we could have a court that represents America, instead of NYC.

#4 | Posted by Robson at 2016-11-27 06:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'd support term limits for SCOTUS judges so we could have a court that represents America, instead of NYC.

NYC doesn't include NYC?

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 06:29 PM | Reply

*America doesn't include NYC?

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 07:10 PM | Reply

The filibuster is an action that the GOP could eliminate but if they do, they know from the last 8 years, what that could mean if the Dems ever regain the majority in the Senate and the House. They are wise to be wary of treading where no party has tread though is was so tempting.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-28 01:27 AM | Reply

The filibuster is an action that the GOP could eliminate but if they do, they know from the last 8 years, what that could mean if the Dems ever regain the majority in the Senate and the House. They are wise to be wary of treading where no party has tread though is was so tempting.

#7 | POSTED BY DANNI

Your party already nuked the filibuster for all appointments sans POTUS.

You seem to recognize this as a mistake. Having said that, I will remind you that you cheered it BIG-TIME when Reid and your party made it happen just a few short years ago. I told you then that you would rue the day that the power would shift and, here we are...

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-28 01:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I will remind you that you cheered it BIG-TIME when Reid and your party made it happen just a few short years ago."

"In 2013, Democrats changed this for executive and judicial branch nominations (except the Supreme Court). They reduced the number of votes required to break debate to a simple majority -- and essentially banned nomination filibusters. Except for those nominations and some measures that are protected by law from filibusters (such as the congressional budget resolution), Senate rules still require 60 votes to cut off debate before the Senate votes."

That was an action to allow the President to appoint judges, an action no President had been denied before, and on that the REpublicans were, quite obviously, trying to prevent his right to exert his Presidential authority and they expressly took out SC Justices. The Republicans for 8 years have filibusters almost every appointment to federal courts by Obama, this is a blatant attempt to negate his presidency and prevent FAIR judges from being appointed. No similar action has ever occurred in our nation, your support of it indicated ignorance of it and the intent of it or just blatant partisanship. Even partisans used to support the President's right to appoint qualified judges. His color shouldn't have eliminated that right, but it did.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-28 02:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That was an action to allow the President to appoint judges, an action no President had been denied before,

Really?

Google: Bush. Nuclear Option. Gang-of-14.

The Republicans for 8 years have filibusters almost every appointment to federal courts by Obama, this is a blatant attempt to negate his presidency and prevent FAIR judges from being appointed.

Um, no. Not even close. I'd ask you to source this claim, but you can't. What you are probably thinking about is the record number of legislative filibusters which corresponded with the record number of filled trees.

Your beloved party nuked the filibuster for all executive appointments sans POTUS. It was an extraordinary measure less than 10 years after the 'Gang-of-14 prevented an identical measure when the GOP had the WH and the Senate.

Well, your party made its bed, now they are about to lie in it. You don't like Jeff Sessions? You think he should be filibustered? It was YOUR party that took that power away from the minority. You thought it was one of the greatest things ever when your party had the WH and the Senate. But it's a Senate rule that was never reversed. Guess what? The GOP has the WH and the Senate. Had your party not nuked the filibuster, Senate Dems could block Sessions. But they can't and that is 100% on them.

You are missing the point (deliberately?)

What do you think about that 'Nuclear Option' now that the roles are reversed?

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-28 02:25 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#8 Jeff, agree to confirm Merrick Garland before Jan. 20th or STFU. Again, not personal but I hope you agree.

Don't want to hear it, if you've been paying attention the GOP has been playing dirty with Congress since 2010. Either play fair or get ready for turnabout being fair play.

Gawd I hope there is something to the recount because I'm ready for some Hell is About to Break Loose Humble Pie!

#11 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 02:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bocaink,

Garland absolutely deserved to go through the process.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-28 02:31 AM | Reply

Don't want to hear it, if you've been paying attention the GOP has been playing dirty with Congress since 2010. Either play fair or get ready for turnabout being fair play

Debatable and irrelevant. The GOP took the House in '10. This thread is about the Senate and the GOP didn't take this chamber until 2014.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-28 02:36 AM | Reply

The article is about Senate Republicans conflicted about following Harry Reid's trashing of the cloture rule (the "nuclear option") and preferring consensus building. Republicans are actually looking out for the minority voice. I am pleasantly surprised this link made it on this site.

#14 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2016-11-28 03:42 AM | Reply

"Had your party not nuked the filibuster, Senate Dems could block Sessions. But they can't and that is 100% on them. "

Quite the contrary, kit now makes Sessions 100% on the Republicans. Good luck with that, I wouldn't want to be held responsible for putting a racist monster in that position. Your party seems fine with it though, they will bear 100% of the responsibility for it and his racism will bleed off on your members who put him there. And there is no defense against that because it's the truth, anyone who votes to confirm him is a racist.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-28 07:22 AM | Reply

"Had your party not nuked the filibuster, Senate Dems could block Sessions. But they can't and that is 100% on them. "
-----
Quite the contrary, kit now makes Sessions 100% on the Republicans. Good luck with that, I wouldn't want to be held responsible for putting a racist monster in that position. Your party seems fine with it though, they will bear 100% of the responsibility for it and his racism will bleed off on your members who put him there. And there is no defense against that because it's the truth, anyone who votes to confirm him is a racist.

#15 | POSTED BY DANNI

I don't even know what you think you were responding to.

Your party is powerless to stop nominees who they feel are egregious. If Trump nominates Oligarch, union-busting thugs to the NLRB the Democrats will be powerless to stop it because they threw out the tool that existed for short-term political gain and you cheered them on at the time.

Sessions isn't a racist. I hate to break it to you, but he's not. Having said that, you view him as a "monster". Wouldn't it be nice if your party had the ability to block his nomination? Are you incapable of acknowledging that they did have the power to block him, but they themselves threw that power away?

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-28 08:01 AM | Reply

"Sessions isn't a racist. I hate to break it to you, but he's not."

And you "know" this, how?

#17 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-11-28 08:04 AM | Reply

"Republicans are actually looking out for the minority voice."

Yes, the white male minority.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-28 09:27 AM | Reply

-Yes, the white male minority.

Yes we know you and your bigoted comrades hate us white males. You've made it loud and clear, so clear in fact, that it might have cost you the election.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 09:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"White Males?" where in the heck did that come from, oh, someone who doesn't like males and now we see in particular white males.

#20 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-28 10:01 AM | Reply

-Yes, the white male minority.

Yes we know you and your bigoted comrades hate us white males. You've made it loud and clear, so clear in fact, that it might have cost you the election.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian

Well, let's see: non-Hispanic white people in the US are 63.7% of the population, but ~1/2 of that are females, which leaves white males at ~31.875%. Sounds like a minority to me.

#21 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-28 10:33 AM | Reply

#19

The president pro tempore of the Toon Town Whine & Jeez Club hath bleated.

#22 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-11-28 10:48 AM | Reply

Jeff, I am glad you are in agreement about Garland, but he isn't going to be nominated. Because of that and the other past sins, I hope to God the Dems pull every dirty trick the Repubs do tenfold on them. The time to compromise was from 2008-2016, we just endured 8 years of hubristic rule prior to that. A little compromise would have fixed most of what ails Obamacare, the stimulus etc, and make both sides look like adults. Instead the GOP declared war on the process.

At this point I want blood. I want everything blocked, everything.

I want to make Trump a one-year president because I love America. I'm patriotic, I eat Freedom Fries, I pulled myself up from my bootstraps even though I had no laces and I expect the GOP Congress to act like big-boys and do the same regardless of the obstacles in front of them. Let's do some practice what you preach'in.

#23 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 12:03 PM | Reply

We need at least 200 hearings on Trumps private business dealings. We also need to investigate whether Ivanka is legally permitted to live in the US since it is common knowledge she worked in the US as an illegal immigrant.

I want hearings if there is a one-day delay in building that wall and 100 percent verification that Mexico has enough funds secured to pay for it. I demand a full report on every single Muslim entering and exiting the US within the first 100 days or filibuster any possible budget proposal...including a government shutdown.

we Filibuster any attempts to repeal Obamacare or any attempts to modify it, and win the press war that it's the GOP who refuses to budge.

It is so much easier to be an antagonist than it is to actually govern. Something that should have been obvious but you chumps are gonna find out the hard way.

But knowing Democrats, they will have the GOP pigs right where they want them and fold.

#24 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 12:09 PM | Reply

#24
How are the repubs going to figure this out? Dems can't stop anything at all. Nothing. All they can do is bitch and moan; and we know they are good at that.

#25 | Posted by homerj at 2016-11-28 06:55 PM | Reply

When I said "minority voice" in #14 it was in reference to a minority party in the Senate (the Dems) as opposed to the majority party (the Republicans). This has nothing to do with race, but about numbers of Senators for each party. I am not surprised some HRC supporters did not get this, as they seemingly don't understand the difference between a majority and a plurality, either.

#26 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2016-11-28 07:49 PM | Reply

#25, ummmm....they can filibuster and dare the Republicans to change the current procedural rules and prepare for a major backlash when the tables turn if they do?

That's my point, and why even Repubs don't wanna eliminate the filibuster. Darn straight they can block an agenda.

#27 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:56 AM | Reply

And nobody is more thin-skinned than GOPiggies.

Here's a test: "Happy Holidays"

#28 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-29 12:56 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort