• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the filibuster exist four years from now?

Will the filibuster exist four years from now?

  • Total voters
    21
Beaudreaux said:
Frightening, isn't it? You'd think they would remember how it felt to have Harry Reid and the Democrats shove the PPACA, federal judge nominations, and many other votes down their throats without even being allowed to have a floor vote on ONE amendment and no way to slow the train down because the filibuster had been nuked.

But, NOOOOOOOO... We have to be dicks and shove our agenda down THEIR throats while we can. What assholes.
Click to expand...

Well the good news is if they do theyll lose the Senate and Democrats will be back in charge, and they will change it back, right? I mean they wouldnt take advantage, right?
 
JANFU said:
And your answer is to do the same??
Click to expand...

Isn't necessary to do the same...Harry Reid and the democrats already did it for Republican. Remember Reid said it was for the good of the people....
 
antiquity said:
Isn't necessary to do the same...Harry Reid and the democrats already did it for Republican. Remember Reid said it was for the good of the people....
Click to expand...
If you wish to condemn one, then you need to be condemning the same if implemented by the Republican Party.
Otherwise that is hypocritical. Would you agree?
 
vesper said:
Reid and the Democrats removed it to force their agenda through. I think it only fitting the Republicans let the Democratic senators get a taste of their own medicine.

The same way the Democrats shoved things through will be the same way the Republicans will undo them. By midterms with a large number of Democrats in red states up for re-election there's a good chance the Republicans will add significant number of seats to their majority. Then would be a good time to restore the filibuster. :)
Click to expand...

You're more confident in the midterms than I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JANFU said:
Excellent points made - Both parties have to compromise, no one party should have the ability to shove nominations down the peoples throats.
IIRC Reid was more than willing to use the Nuke option. He is an idiot, that has since left. He was also IMHO, a crook and a liar of epic proportions.

From what I recall, and pls correct me if I am in error, but all nominations, excluding SCOTUS, Judiciary and such, require a simple majority.
Your suggestion would make the Senate more viable, and holds any President, in check. IMHO, that is the balance desperately needed
Click to expand...

I agree.

Under the Democrats nuclear option they implemented, all nominations with the sole exception of SCOTUS now require only a simple majority. That's how Obama and the Democrats packed the D.C. Court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Will the filibuster exist four years from now?
Click to expand...

hard to know. they'll probably want to appoint one or two extreme right-leaning justices to tip the court, and they won't have the votes to do it. i doubt that they are going to compromise on a more centrist nominee or just say "well, shucks" and head home. seems more likely that they'll just change the rules.
 
JANFU said:
If you wish to condemn one, then you need to be condemning the same if implemented by the Republican Party.
Otherwise that is hypocritical. Would you agree?
Click to expand...

"if" please.....stop the 'if' BS.

Absolutely not..... the republican had nothing to do with the implementing the nuclear option. Its all on Harry Reid and his fellow democrats. What is good for the goose is good for the gander...don't you agree?
 
antiquity said:
"if" please.....stop the 'if' BS.

Absolutely not..... the republican had nothing to do with the implementing the nuclear option. Its all on Harry Reid and his fellow democrats. What is good for the goose is good for the gander...don't you agree?
Click to expand...
Clearly no. Wrong is wrong. Do you disagree?
 
Helix said:
hard to know. they'll probably want to appoint one or two extreme right-leaning justices to tip the court, and they won't have the votes to do it. i doubt that they are going to compromise on a more centrist nominee or just say "well, shucks" and head home. seems more likely that they'll just change the rules.
Click to expand...

Extreme right-leaning justices? Stop with the hyperbole. Would you agree if Hillary was elected POTUS she would have nominated extreme left wing justices? See how that works?
Remember that Ruth Bader was overwhelmingly confirmed by republicans even when she was a member of the ACLU... an organization founded by a communist.
 
Last edited:
antiquity said:
Then stop voting for democrats who voted to implemented the Nuclear option in the first place.
Click to expand...

I cannot vote- Aside from that you avoided the question.
 
Helix said:
hard to know. they'll probably want to appoint one or two extreme right-leaning justices to tip the court, and they won't have the votes to do it. i doubt that they are going to compromise on a more centrist nominee or just say "well, shucks" and head home. seems more likely that they'll just change the rules.
Click to expand...

Everything is zero sum now. That they won't get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats use it seems incredibly unlikely to me.
 
NonoBadDog said:
If the Democrats don't get their act together and focus on politics and why they lost the rust belt they will lose seats at Mid Term and the Republicans will hold enough seats that filibuster won't be an issue. I don't see the Democrats fixing their party so I think the Senate will be filibuster proof with no changes to the rules for filibuster as those changes would be moot.
Click to expand...

I hate that you believe (dream) this. Almost as much as I hate your hating of sweet little kittens.

We gwine filibutder 'til the cows come home. Write that down.
 
antiquity said:
Extreme right-leaning justices? Stop with the hyperbole. Would you agree if Hillary was elected POTUS she would have nominated extreme left wing justices? See how that works?
Remember that Ruth Bader was overwhelmingly confirmed by republicans even when she was a member of the ACLU... an organization founded by a communist.
Click to expand...

well, perhaps we should wait and see who he nominates. at that point, we can have a more informed discussion.
 
Cardinal said:
Everything is zero sum now. That they won't get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats use it seems incredibly unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

seems probable. i tend to doubt that they will let the minority party block any SCOTUS nominee as long as they enjoy a majority.
 
d0gbreath said:
I hate that you believe (dream) this. Almost as much as I hate your hating of sweet little kittens.

We gwine filibutder 'til the cows come home. Write that down.
Click to expand...

"gwine filibutder"???? WTF does that even mean? Your whole post is in idiot. I don't speak idiot. Can you translate the idiot post for me?
 
NonoBadDog said:
"gwine filibutder"???? WTF does that even mean? Your whole post is in idiot. I don't speak idiot. Can you translate the idiot post for me?
Click to expand...

We are going to filibuster until the cows come home.

Suck puppy.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have mixed feelings. You make a good point but there is something to be said in proving to the Democrats what Turtleman (no relation) warned them about when they got rid of the filibuster a few years ago. SO maybe its time for the GOP to ram some good justices up the dems noses as pay back for the crap the dems pulled on Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler when they filibustered or stalled forever those appointments for disgusting and dishonest reasons
Click to expand...

My general take...

On principle, I'd like the Republicans simply to reinstate the old rules and leave them in place, rather than slumming it on Harry Reid's level with the way he restricted some of the minority rights.

On the pragmatic side, I also recognize that if the Democrats do not feel any pain from engaging in such despicable actions, then there's little keeping them from doing it in the future. The main thing that deters a side from instituting such rules is the fear that the other side will use it when they get in power. If the Republicans just immediately reinstate the rules, then it takes away that deterrent. So my pragmatic view is a bit different...

Utilize reconciliation to get rid of the ACA; make use of the way it ultimately was able to come into existence as the means to kill it if need be. Utilize the anti-filibuster rules to get a few federal appointments you want, but know are odious to Democrats, in. Just one or two.

At that point, and it should be early into his 4 years (Ie within year 1), reinstitute the rules and leave them there properly for the rest of the time.

This allows for that deterrent to still be in place....if you stupidly restrict the minorities ability, then you may get burned by that when YOU'RE in the minority. At the same time, it sets things back to how they should be and has you functioning "above the board" going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom