American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/unemployment-rate-faked_n_4302907.html

not that obama haters will be derailed by you know facts and stuff

a couple right bloggers tweeted at me today "will you update your article on jack welch," "is jack welch owed an apology" etc

an anonymous source told the NY Post

Pretty sure what's going to happen is we are going to further expand the definition of middle class so that it includes most poor people.

Sounds like a great plan Harry, assuming you're not worried that the Republicans could ever capture the Senate again.

― Deuteronomy 23:1 (dandydonweiner), Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:45 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the last time republicans had the senate and the presidency they threatened to do exactly what reid says hes gonna do until a last minute compromise was put together that neither side would filibuster judicial noms unless theyre were like crazily extremely opposed to them, an agreement on which the republicans have now reneged, so basically the republicans already threw the judicial filibuster out the window and will for sure do it again given the opportunity and reid has nothing to lose here and a lot to gain

this is it should be mentioned not eliminating the filibuster altogether but just for judicial nominations

and of course the filibuster shd be thrown out altogether and if a party wins all the elections they shd be able to enact their agenda because democracy

the last time republicans had the senate and the presidency they threatened to do exactly what reid says hes gonna do

uh yeah that's what I was driving at--that if Reid goes through with this you might as well start assuming that the Republicans will be ball breakers on this issue if they ever get the Senate back.

guy they already effectively did it of course they are going to to it again the democrats lose nothing by doing it first

"effectively did it" = opinion

changing rules with simple majority = fact based meme that has legs

I'd be very surprised if Reid followed through on that.

it is not an opinion its a historical fact, the republicans via threatening the nuclear option forced a deal which gave them all the benefits of eliminating the filibuster hence my use of the word effectively, this is clearly something youre hearing about for the first time

Maybe I'm not being clear but I'm not disputing the threats that Republicans made or that scenario when they were last in control of the Senate, which I'm aware of.

What I'm saying is that Red is not going to follow through on the nuclear option because it would be disastrous if the Democrats ever lost control of the Senate. The threat may force a deal again, but it's highly unlikely that Reid and the Democrats are going to change the rules of the Senate.

I dunno -- I tend to think when you have a milquetoast like Feinstein and a nice guy like Patrick Leahy supporting its elimination it has a good chance of happening.

True, but the more convincing the threat, the better chance of negotiation. Am too lazy to see who allegedly was on board to vote that way when the Republicans were threatening it last time. Do you remember?

I think issue with your point is that that there are two things at this point that Reid is scared of 1) is giving Republicans power to install some truly horrendous fuckers on Courts but 2) is letting them keep enough these seats open for long enough that whenever a Republican president comes in he'll have a huge # of seats to fill. The latter is becoming terrifying enough that the former might be worth dealing with (plus as everyone has pointed out all the filibuster ever did was block a small # of the most horrible fuckers... the just terrible fuckers still got votes without any problem).

And for the record losing control of the Senate is probably reason why this is coming up. If Dems lose control of Senate next year then Republicans can keep a lot of these nominees locked in committee indefinitely. And critical piece is not Dems losing Senate, it's Dems losing both Senate and Presidency.

Vital that these are non-revocable posts, right? It's a gamble, but there's a lot at stake, because once the Dems get judges onboard, they're there for life. We're still dealing with the fallout of all the jackasses Bush got through and appointed thanks to Dems being suckersreasonable. More along those lines and the gates to the conservatives unraveling even more laws than they've attempted so far - big 'uns, too - will be wide open, no matter the composition of the Congress and Senate or party of the President.

Like, right wingers may rail against so-called judicial activism, but it's to their credit that the've quietly recognized that judicial activism is the key to circumventing gov gridlock (of their devising) and public opinion.

2) is letting them keep enough these seats open for long enough that whenever a Republican president comes in he'll have a huge # of seats to fill

ding ding. dan, you think McConnell and Grassley will bleat about court packing with President Scott Walker?

yes and so-called liberal pols haven't xpost

Haven't what?

haven't realized they should embrace judicial activism

What I'm saying is that Red is not going to follow through on the nuclear option because it would be disastrous if the Democrats ever lost control of the Senate.

― Deuteronomy 23:1 (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:53 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if the republicans control the senate they can just go nuclear themselves, something they already proved more than willing to do during a time when their caucus was far less activist than it is now, they dont need the democrats to set the precedent, the only thing that would change if the democrats did it first is that they would successfully put democratic judges in important positions, well that and they wouldve added some slight aspect of democracy to the us government, this is a very strange definition of disastrous

It's hard to embrace judicial activism when the opposition won't let you appoint judges, activist or not.

When was the last time a Dem congress effectively shut down or locked up the legislative branch vis a vis imposed gridlock and in essence a perpetual strike threat? While the Republicans dick around in Congress and the senate struggles to keep the Congress in check, the wheels of justice turn (and overturn) in the courts, which are not exactly clearly leaning in the Dem's favor these days.

True, but the more convincing the threat, the better chance of negotiation. Am too lazy to see who allegedly was on board to vote that way when the Republicans were threatening it last time. Do you remember?

― Deuteronomy 23:1 (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, November 20, 2013 12:28 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Under Bush, as I recall, a Republican Senate's Gang of 12 (that included blue-dog moderate Dems)reached an agreement to let Bush judicial nominees to get a vote, and then of course, as Lagoon mentioned above, the Republicans reneged on the deal once Obama took office.

if the republicans control the senate they can just go nuclear themselves

Republicans threatened last time and got what they wanted (which I assume set a precedent); there was not a formal vote. Seems assured that if Dems get around to actually voting to change the rules that that will be a new precedent. That's what my original post intended to say--that Reid would be setting a new precedent and its effects would be felt the next time Republicans hold a majority.

youre leaving a lot on the table in the hopes that the republicans wont do something they clearly will do

so if i (or, say, someone like me but poorer/darker-hued) were arrested for buying 3.5 ounces of cocaine, could i expect to plead guilty and get one year of probation and a one year of probation and a $250 fine50 fine?

grams dude grams

pour one out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Grams

It wasn't crack apparently. Only the form of cocaine used by poor people gets one time

youre leaving a lot on the table in the hopes that the republicans wont do something they clearly will do

Hmm, I certainly think that if the Senate votes to change the rules now, the Republicans will do things like that next time 'round. I fully expect Republicans to threaten nuclear next time, and if Reid actually goes nuke now, they'll go through with it because it will be precedented.

I'm not advocating that Reid go nuke, threaten it, or whatever. I'm just saying that the Republicans are living the precedent that they set when they were in charge, and that Reid should be prepared for the same thing if the Republicants take over. Might be easier to just to renege on stuff without changing the rules--that's a Republican precedent, right?

Anyway, sorry if I was not clear about this.

xp

I am still not clear on what you're saying. I don't see any current Republican senators willing to reach a negotiated settlement this week for the 3 judicial nominations just filibustered.

Right, so Reid will hold a formal vote to change the rules. That's never been done before, correct?

(with regard to this issue)

Yes, I think no such formal vote has ever been held. Yes also I think, no party has ever filibustered as much as the current Republican party.

OK so if a formal vote is held this time, it sets a precedent then. Correct?

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/Cole123RF/Cole123RF0806/Cole123RF080600086/3228863-attractive-thirteen-year-old-boy-with-chin-resting-on-fist--white-background.jpg

stink tanks! old news!
http://billmoyers.com/2013/11/19/how-a-shadowy-network-of-corporate-front-groups-distorts-the-marketplace-of-ideas/

i think holding a formal vote to change how the senate does business is a "new precedent" but also a GOOD precedent -- rather than the kludgey mess we have now, where it operates on a morass of abused procedures remedied only by shaky agreements between cobbled-together 'gangs'. i mean, this is no way to live.

also as i may have said its a precedent that the gop could just do themselves anytime they regain control

making the precedent really fairly meaningless

(side note, where is this stock image from, nambla? "attractive-thirteen-year-old-boy-with-chin-resting-on-fist--white-background.jpg" )

I've been looking for a good chin-resting image.

there's a surprising dearth of good ones

Their children go to this daycare thing with the children of lobbyists and special interest group representatives while the parents — the lawmakers and their spouses – go off to parties and are wined and dined by these corporations that have legislation before those state houses.

re: nuclear option. senate republicans seem to be goading reid to do it. they see it as a political win no matter what.

if he uses it, they can cry foul and raise a huge stink in the press for years, and large numbers of voters will believe them. if he doesn't use it, they can block every Obama nominee and leave dozens of empty seats on federal benches, waiting for a republican president to fill them, or else slow the courts to a crawl, making it more difficult to challenge the many bad laws coming out of the state legislatures.

Large numbers of voters are going to vote GOP with or without nuclear option. They're not winning anybody over.

i think you mean they can raise a huge stink in the press for two days and huge numbers of voters will never hear abou it