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

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

this is arcane Beltway bullshit no one outside ILX and talk show green rooms cares about.

feeding new resentments to the base is a republican pastime. the good ones last longer than a couple of days and there are plenty of media outlets who'll cling to this, just as there are plenty to keep the cry of 'Benghazi' alive.

right, but those guys had resentments already. They ain't getting converts.

They don't need converts to get a political win from this.

The alternative to republican obstruction is letting Obama have his judges with no fuss. If Reid goes nuclear, Obama gets his judges anyway, but they get to feed their base a new 'proof' of democrat perfidy, and also get a free road to nominate anyone they please when their chance arrives. Anti-abortion, pro-corporate judges are the coin in which they pay much of their base, so this just smooths the way for the worst judges they can find.

Aimless, why do you care about political wins? Just turn off the news and head to ILX>

the GOP is gonna act like scoundrels when they get the Senate and presidency. And you forget one thing: eliminating the filibuster may energize the Democratic base.

Just a lonely guy here, thinkin about why the senate republicans would be such huge assholes and think it's a truly great idea. I'm senatesplaining.

various notes:

condescension with subpar reading comprehension skills to boot o wow

― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, November 18, 2013 8:22 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

board descrip

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

― goole, Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

godless commies at the WSJ nicely dismantled this, though what i hear from my One Right Wing Friend is that Your Charts And Facts Mean Nothing

I've been wishing for years that Reid would go nuclear, because both sides deserve the right to nominate whoever they want and get a vote on them when they're holding the Nominatin' Stick. I think the GOP doesn't have the restraint not to nominate the batshit and/or the dangerous when they get the chance (c.f. Miers) and can be further marginalized as the party of insanity + cruelty every time they step on their own dick. Maybe I'm naive.

miers actually less batshit/dangerous than the safe candidates who got on the court

otm

I don't often quote Chait but:

But, as some Republicans have correctly noted, if the majority can constantly threaten a rule change to break a filibuster, then you might as well change the rules. The Republicans are right about something else, too: A world in which 50 senators can confirm a lifetime judicial appointment could one day have frightening ramifications. The general logic of abolishing the filibuster is that the majority party ought to be able to enact its program, and if they go too far, voters can install a new government to undo it. That rationale does not apply to judges who serve until they die and can rewrite the law however they choose.

Ideally, the Senate would find some mechanism that would be strong enough to allow the minority to block unusually extreme judges from the bench, but weak enough to prevent the minority from issuing a total blockade on even qualified judges. That would require the creation of some sort of creative power-sharing arrangement that gives formal definition to the devilishly ill-defined concept of “advice and consent.” But the trend in American government has been that power does not get shared, and instead flows to whichever party has the will to seize it. Senate Republicans have seized new powers by imposing a judicial blockade on the D.C. Circuit, and the only available Democratic response appears to be seizing back more power still.

Haven't seen a lot of defenses for the lifetime appointment thingie recently.

congress should vote anonymous

congressional coked up international party bro photo album http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trey-radel-international-man-of-mystery

lol at misidentifying cambodia as colombia

who even gives a shit what country were in wooooooo *shotguns local beer*

idk dudes that looks like some booze-shaming to me

"this guy was nailed for an 8 ball, here are some pictures of him with beer" uhh

the partying around the world thing captures a certain type so perfectly

Second comment on that article: "Congressman Dudebro (R-SPRIIIIIIIING BREEEEEEEAAAKKK!)"

combined w the whole does coke but votes for drug testing food stamp recipients really paints a picture

who even gives a shit what country were in wooooooo *shotguns local beer*

― lag∞n, Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:32 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^

^^^

well yeah, he's a sick hypocrite. that's not really my point.

your point is some generalized shame shaming ignoring the context already provided by yours truly, shameful imho