Senate approves nuclear option

Deuce said:

And when "sometimes" become "every time," it is not a good thing.

Click to expand...

You let us know when, indeed, it becomes "every time."

The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.

For federal appeals court nominees, President George W. Bush saw 35 of his 52 nominees confirmed, and, so far, 30 of Mr. Obama’s 42 nominees have been confirmed. Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all saw significantly higher confirmation rates for their appeals court nominees.

Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more than six months.

Click to expand...

Do Obama Nominees Face Stiffer Senate Opposition? - Washington Wire - WSJ

Lutherf said:

we can not allow ourselves to devolve into a "winner take all" form of government.

Click to expand...

Winner takes all translates into "majority rule"
That was good enough for the framers of the constitution but it is not good enough for you?
Germany has socialized healthcare and socialized education through college. They take care of their old ,young and infirm without question and with dignity.Their republic is doing just fine and capitalism thrives.
You are, for some reason, afraid of institutionalized humanity when it can be plainly illustrated that it works.

Perotista said:

The only way of an easing up of the political poisonous atmospher in D.C. is if we were, as voters to send most packing.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you read Mann and Orenstein's book, you'll see how the voter impulse to "throw out da bums" is counterproductive to that goal.

Then you have the problem in the house where gerrymandering creats safe districts which in itself causes those who sit in them to become very hard left and right.

Click to expand...

True... but that doesn't explain partisanship in the Senate, Presidency, governorships and so forth.

Siding with one side or the other is your perogitive. I prefer to blame both parties.

Click to expand...

And again, in this particular case that's not warranted.

The Republicans, starting with Gingrich, have increasingly chosen not to compromise, and prefer to blow things up when they don't get their way. It's a direct result of their anti-government, anti-democratic attitudes, bomb-throwing tactics, and penchant for disenfranchisement.

Speaking of irony, how about the party most known for protecting minority rights just nuked the minorty party of its rights.

Click to expand...

No, they certainly haven't. They have not stopped the Republicans from voting on appointments or legislature.

What happened is in 2005, the Democrats got a bit obstructionist of Bush appointments, so the Republicans started threatening to remove the filibuster. When Obama took office, the Republican obstructionist tactics went off the scale. In addition, both sides made a deal earlier this year -- the Republicans would lift their filibusters on a bunch of appointees, and the Dems wouldn't change the Senate rules during the recess period. The Republicans reneged on the deal, so the filibuster rules got partially removed.

FYI I was opposed to it in 2005 also. Like I said I am a traditionalist.

Click to expand...

A traditionalist to when? 1975? If you were truly a "traditionalist," you'd be howling over the abuse of the filibuster in the past ~10 years.

New York was the last state in the US to adopt no-fault divorce. Should they have continued to block no-fault divorces because of "tradition"?

On a side note, tradition for its own sake is detrimental. The reason why you have a rule is because it accomplishes a goal. When it hinders that goal, it's time to get rid of the rule, no matter how old it is.

I would rather suffer though non-appointments for a year or two than see protection of the minority eliminated.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that would mean 4 or 5 years. It would mean vacancies at top agencies and judicial appointments. Or, in the case of the ATF, seven.

Once used, it will become common place, hence I am of the oppinion to just do away with it now.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what has happened to the filibuster. It has become commonplace, and has changed the entire Senate from needing a simple majority (as has been the case for decades) into requiring a supermajority to get anything done.

I still think they, the Democrats should have listen to Levin. He was in the minority once before....

Click to expand...

So was Reid, who has been a senator since 1987. So have many senators, who have been in office since before 2005.

I wonder if there are any lessons to be learned for the 21st of November action and if there are, what are they?

Click to expand...

The lesson ought to be: "The time for obstructionism is over."

Harshaw said:

I'd say you have a very short memory, but chances are, you were never aware of this to begin with:

Click to expand...

See the chart and tell me that Democrats abused the filibuster the same as the republicons.
Again it is a republicon thing to filibuster EVERY nomination.

McConnell brought this on himself.
He is a stubborn and stupid man.

The senate writes their own rules, so let them!

The filibuster has been used like the Golden Snitch, and Republicans have figured out they can just catch it on the way out on every game. So they get their way, and good for them, but guess what? Nobody gets to play the game.

Buck Ewer said:

Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.

Click to expand...

Of course they don't. Never. Ever. In that parallel universe where everything is like here, only the other way around.

Listen to one Sen. Reid form Nevada (surely not THIS Sen. Reid?!), going on record in 2005, defending passionately the use of filibuster against the nominees of Pres. Bush:
(Reid Floor Speech on Use of Filibuster | Senate Democrats)

Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a “procedural gimmick.”

The Websters dictionary defines “gimmick” as – - “an ingenious new scheme or angle.” No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new.

The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.

In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.”

In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate – and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.

Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.

– 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule.

– 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.

A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.

Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?

Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?”

“To cool it,” Jefferson replied.

To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

In fact, my colleague from Georgia – Senator Isakson – recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government.

The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied… “no….we have the secret weapon called the ‘filibuster.’”

In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: “If there were ever a reason for optimism… it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.”

And he was right.

I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours.

There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.

In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy.

In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.

Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes.

Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed – - Civil Rights advocates met the burden.

And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option.

For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.

At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important.

He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay – as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.

But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.

Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House.

In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate.

If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.

Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary.

Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington.

From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people…

To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission…

To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power…

To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House…

Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.

America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.

For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.

They want to do away with the filibuster.

They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.

I doubt that’s true.

Buck Ewer said:

Winner takes all translates into "majority rule"
That was good enough for the framers of the constitution but it is not good enough for you?
Germany has socialized healthcare and socialized education through college. They take care of their old ,young and infirm without question and with dignity.Their republic is doing just fine and capitalism thrives.
You are, for some reason, afraid of institutionalized humanity when it can be plainly illustrated that it works.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with humanity. I do have a problem with allowing one person or one group unfettered ability to define what is and isn't humane.

I do not think that is neccessarily an improvement. I am always sceptical, when control mechanisms are tampered with.

Buck Ewer said:

See the chart and tell me that Democrats abused the filibuster the same as the republicons.
Again it is a republicon thing to filibuster EVERY nomination.
View attachment 67157160
McConnell brought this on himself.
He is a stubborn and stupid man.

Click to expand...

I doubt that this has occurred to you but have you considered that the reason for so many filibusters under Obama is that the current crop of Democrats are pushing an agenda that is more distasteful to this nation than any congress before them?

Buck Ewer said:

See the chart and tell me that Democrats abused the filibuster the same as the republicons.
Again it is a republicon thing to filibuster EVERY nomination.
View attachment 67157160
McConnell brought this on himself.
He is a stubborn and stupid man.

Click to expand...

1) That wasn't the question. You claimed the Democrats DON'T filibuster, and that ONLY "Republicons" [sic] do.

2) Cloture is a motion that limits the time of debate. It is not a motion to end a filibuster specifically. Putting up the number of cloture motions does not show the number of filibusters. Reid has been quite aggressive in filing for cloture in order to suppress debate after filling the tree -- not countering filibusters. Contrary to what you and Mother Jones would have us believe, that "307" number does not represent 307 Republican filibusters.

The Republicans have filibustered more than the Democrats, but they've also been in the minority -- and thus would be the ones filibustering -- much more than the Democrats.

jonny5 said:

You defend it by saying the majority got 99% of they want. What has the minority gotten? They theoretically represent 45% of the country, but because the majority represents 55%, the only things that get done is what 55% want? What about the rest of us? And that's why the minority has to use whatever leverage they have.

Click to expand...

Once again, the filibuster is not dead in the Senate! You folks who keep repeating this line really need to stop listening to the Conservative talking heads out there. The filibuster can still be used for all other orders of normal Senate businesses except for presidential appointments and judicial nominations less for Supreme Court justices.

Visbek said:

Follow the thread. I was specifically referring to MMC's plan to replace judges more frequently.

In addition, only one Supreme Court justice has ever been filibustered, and then only for four days.

Click to expand...

I am following the thread as closely as I can considering how quickly it keeps changing. Perhaps you should learn how to use emoticons in your posts to better denote sarcasm? Just a thought...

In any case, clad you clarified your position which in this case speaks directly to why Sen. Reid pressed the button (pun intended) on the nuclear option. Since Obama was first elected, Republicans apparently have stonewalled on more presidential nominations using the filibuster as their man tool than at any other time since the Reagan era according to this memo (reposted for emphasis). I think it's important to keep that in mind, as well as the fact that Republicans were the first to threaten taking such action because back in the day it was Senate Democrats who were doing the same thing to GWB's presidential nominees. A deal was reached between Senate Dems and Repubs similar to what was in place prior to Sen. Reid pulling the trigger - that no presidential nominations short of those for the SC would be filibustered and that each would get a straight up or down vote except under extraordinary circumstances (not sure how they were defined back then or even now, but those were the conditions).

So, it would appear that Senate Republicans went back on their word given as recently as July of this year when Sen. Reid last threatened to invoke the nuclear option. The way I see it, Republicans had to know this was coming; they brought it on themselves and I believe secretly they've wanted to do it for a long time but weren't brave enough to go through with it. Besides, since Senate Dems kept their word and really didn't delay GWB's presidential appointments (no more than 40 days), I'd say they really didn't have a cause to go through with it back then. But purposely delaying such appointments under Pres. Obama (82 to be exact, nearly half of the total number of such nominations in U.S. history) for over 100 days...yeah, I'd say Sen. Reid had ample reason to follow through with his threat.

Harshaw said:

1) That wasn't the question. You claimed the Democrats DON'T filibuster, and that ONLY "Republicons" [sic] do.

2) Cloture is a motion that limits the time of debate. It is not a motion to end a filibuster specifically. Putting up the number of cloture motions does not show the number of filibusters. Reid has been quite aggressive in filing for cloture in order to suppress debate after filling the tree -- not countering filibusters. Contrary to what you and Mother Jones would have us believe, that "307" number does not represent 307 Republican filibusters.

The Republicans have filibustered more than the Democrats, but they've also been in the minority -- and thus would be the ones filibustering -- much more than the Democrats.

Click to expand...

Good points, but again it bares repeating the filibuster hasn't been removed, just slightly restrained in its use by the minority.

Objective Voice said:

Good points, but again it bares repeating the filibuster hasn't been removed, just slightly restrained by the minority.

Click to expand...

The majority, you mean; I don't disagree.

vesper said:

The Senate is suppose to be a body that makes it difficult to change laws on a whim. These law changes on filibusters didn't start till 1977. But two can play the game.
All it's going to take is 51 seats in the Senate to repeal Obamacare.

Click to expand...

If the GOP tried that, they'd have to change the rules again. The nuclear option doesn't apply to legislation or SCOTUS appointments.

Harshaw said:

The majority, you mean; I don't disagree.

Click to expand...

I was referring to who'd use it, not who initiated the rule change. But your point is taken.

Visbek said:

Actually, if you read Mann and Orenstein's book, you'll see how the voter impulse to "throw out da bums" is counterproductive to that goal.



True... but that doesn't explain partisanship in the Senate, Presidency, governorships and so forth.



And again, in this particular case that's not warranted.

The Republicans, starting with Gingrich, have increasingly chosen not to compromise, and prefer to blow things up when they don't get their way. It's a direct result of their anti-government, anti-democratic attitudes, bomb-throwing tactics, and penchant for disenfranchisement.



No, they certainly haven't. They have not stopped the Republicans from voting on appointments or legislature.

What happened is in 2005, the Democrats got a bit obstructionist of Bush appointments, so the Republicans started threatening to remove the filibuster. When Obama took office, the Republican obstructionist tactics went off the scale. In addition, both sides made a deal earlier this year -- the Republicans would lift their filibusters on a bunch of appointees, and the Dems wouldn't change the Senate rules during the recess period. The Republicans reneged on the deal, so the filibuster rules got partially removed.



A traditionalist to when? 1975? If you were truly a "traditionalist," you'd be howling over the abuse of the filibuster in the past ~10 years.

New York was the last state in the US to adopt no-fault divorce. Should they have continued to block no-fault divorces because of "tradition"?

On a side note, tradition for its own sake is detrimental. The reason why you have a rule is because it accomplishes a goal. When it hinders that goal, it's time to get rid of the rule, no matter how old it is.



Yeah, that would mean 4 or 5 years. It would mean vacancies at top agencies and judicial appointments. Or, in the case of the ATF, seven.



That is exactly what has happened to the filibuster. It has become commonplace, and has changed the entire Senate from needing a simple majority (as has been the case for decades) into requiring a supermajority to get anything done.



So was Reid, who has been a senator since 1987. So have many senators, who have been in office since before 2005.



The lesson ought to be: "The time for obstructionism is over."

Click to expand...

Governors pretty much work together regardless of party. As to the president, it depends whether he tries to reach across the aisle or not. Eisenhower had LBJ, then senate majority leader over to the White House to discuss how to achieve his agenda at least 3 times a week. JFK and LBJ both worked very closely with then Republican Minority Leader Everit Dirksen. Reagan and Tip O’Neal are famous for both their battles and working together. Heck even Bush the first had his buddy Dan Rostinkowski to work with. The current president has never tried, he didn’t need to in his first two years as he had huge majorities in both chambers. He never tried to develop a working relationship with any Republican. It is the president who must first offer the hand to work together. Heck, sometimes I do not think this president even works with his fellow Democrats in the house at times.

The way I seen it the game between the house and senate, tabling the bills and the filibusters were in a way tit for tat. Blame only one party if you must, but I will not do that. Ah, you are correct, by dropping the Nuke on the 21st, Reid didn’t stop the Republicans from voting, that is for sure. But with a 55-45 majority any nomination is guaranteed now. Voting means nothing, the president can nominate a Hitler or Stalin, a Marx or even a Pol Pot, there is no way to stop him. No way to say, hey, these guys are a little too much, how about reconsidering and send us someone less gruesome. I am not saying the president will, but in today’s lock step world, they would as sure as day is day and night is night be confirmed.

Sure, a traditionalist from IKE on. Play that as you may. Obstruction is over. There is an old saying, one nation’s terrorist is another nation’s freedom fighters. Tabling 50-100 bills from the house without so much as a debate or vote, most without even being assigned to a committee, that is not obstructionalism? Especially when the senate could have amended, changed, added anything Senator Reid wanted and deleted anything Senator Reid didn’t want. But he tabled them. Sounds like your obstruction only works one way.

Kobie said:

If the GOP tried that, they'd have to change the rules again. The nuclear option doesn't apply to legislation or SCOTUS appointments.

Click to expand...

No, but it does apply to executive nominees except for Supreme Court Justices so that means that a Republican president can appoint a new HHS secretary who can "adjust" the regulations covering the ACA.

Cyrylek said:

Listen to one Sen. Reid form Nevada....

Click to expand...

And numerous conservatives were all ready to end the filibuster in 2005.

Why the flip? Because the Republicans have abused a procedural rule that was formerly used in a limited fashion.

When circumstances change, so do the reasons for our decisions.

Lutherf said:

I doubt that this has occurred to you but have you considered that the reason for so many filibusters under Obama is that the current crop of Democrats are pushing an agenda that is more distasteful to this nation than any congress before them?

Click to expand...

They filibuster THEIR OWN LEGISLATION THAT THEY WROTE AND INTRODUCED THEMSELVES, when they find out that the president favors it.
So to answer your question NO...
I have not considered that, because by their own actions the republicons in the senate have shown that they are determined to stop any legislation that the president favors. EVEN THEIR OWN! That goes beyond partisan politics and demonstrates a childish PERSONAL vendetta against the President.
They are stupid and stubborn to a fault.
You apologise for their stupidity and partisan idiocy...
Tell me why the republicons in the senate would filibuster their own bills just because the president supports those bills.
Give me a reasonable and logical reason why they would do that.
We have seen McConnell filibuster a bill that he himself had introduced that same day when the president made a favorable comment towards it... Tell me ... WTF is that?

pbrauer said:

Harry Reid finally comes through

The Senate has voted to change its rules so that a simple majority is required to confirm judicial nominations and executive branch picks — the so-called “nuclear option.”
The final vote was 52-48. The previous threshold was 60 votes to bring such nominations to a final up-or-down vote.
“The threshold for cloture on nominations not including the Supreme Court, is now a majority,” Sen Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate president pro temp, declared after the vote.
Three Democrats voted with Republicans against the change: Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Levin is a longtime senator; Manchin and Pryor come from red states.
Shortly after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) office sent around a memo noting that the Senate has changed its procedures using a majority vote 18 times since 1977. Republicans, though, note that none of the changes rise to the level of today’s change.

Senate approves nuclear option

Click to expand...

Typical progressive anti-democracy games...... When you cant plug the judicial system with your progressive socialist/communist judges - just change the rules/system so you can....

This present administration and Senate is the most disgusting, vile and fascist group of idiot tyrants I have ever seen in my day or even read about in United States history books...... These progressives are disgusting with their attempted recalls, quorums and lawsuits....

All these pathetic losers want is the courts to be padded with progressive communist sympathizing judges so they can file a lawsuit every time a law is passed that goes against their agenda - prop 8 is a perfect example - which ultimately allows them to circumvent democracy via ONE JUDGES RULING...

This is called authoritarianism..... If you don't like a law that has been passed run to a judge that will deem in "unconstitutional" on nothing more than political ideology/affiliation.

Visbek said:

Why the flip? Because the Republicans have abused a procedural rule that was formerly used in a limited fashion.

Click to expand...

Rather, because people in power seek to expand and solidify their power. Reid was right defending filibuster as a form of checks and balances, and he is wrong doing away with it now that his party is in charge.

Kobie said:

If the GOP tried that, they'd have to change the rules again. The nuclear option doesn't apply to legislation or SCOTUS appointments.

Click to expand...

So what? Democrats have been changing the rules for a long time.

When the country was first founded, both the House and the Senate had unlimited debate. When the country grew in size the House made rules to limit the time because of the size.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote (67), a device known as "cloture."

By 1975 Democrats in the majority in the Senate decided to change the rules again. They had the majority of 61 but couldn't reach the needed 67 so they changed the rules making the vote 60 to reach cloture.

When Republicans came up with an up or down vote in 2005 to override the filibusters from the Democrats of all of Bush's nominees, the Democrats named it the Nuclear Option. Harry Reid was livid. But now he seems to like the idea.

So I hope the Republicans if they get in power, just do away with the filibuster all together and show the Democrats what a real Nuclear Option looks like. And when they get done cleaning up all the messes of the Democrats from the feckless spending, to the sh*tload of new regulations and most of all overturning Obamacare, and downscaling the size of the federal government in general... then I would like to see them restore the pre-1975 rules where it would take 2/3 of the Senate to pass another dang bill.

Objective Voice said:

Once again, the filibuster is not dead in the Senate! You folks who keep repeating this line really need to stop listening to the Conservative talking heads out there. The filibuster can still be used for all other orders of normal Senate businesses except for presidential appointments and judicial nominations less for Supreme Court justices.

Click to expand...

Nothing I said had to do anything with the filibuster.

Cyrylek said:

Of course they don't. Never. Ever. In that parallel universe where everything is like here, only the other way around.

Listen to one Sen. Reid form Nevada (surely not THIS Sen. Reid?!), going on record in 2005, defending passionately the use of filibuster against the nominees of Pres. Bush:
.

Click to expand...

Cooling legislation in the senatorial saucer is fine, but when the saucer is metaphorically turned upside down so that no legislation is held by it then that saucer no longer functions and needs to be repaired.
The Democrats used the filibuster when appointments were unreasonable... republicons under McConnell have abused the filibuster using it for EVERY appointment and in doing so, they have themselves become unreasonable.