Skip to main content

View Diary: New York Time's presidential arm-twisting story misses mark (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And the media is now taking teh crazy as granted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, elwior, SilentBrook, Irixsh

    That the Times doesn't even bother to talk about the Orcs and their unprecedented, unconstitutional strategy of forcing a 60 vote majority on everything is appalling in the extreme.  They're giving the filibuster abuse a sense of normalcy by focusing more on what Obama did or did not do re: arm twisting, instead of placing the blame squarely on the Orcs.  

    But hey, I guess they assume that there's no story in orcs being orcs.

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:33:42 AM PDT

    •  Well, Dems put up with it. (6+ / 0-)

      They didn't have to put up. They chose to. They still do.

      •  I actually am a little sympathetic to the Dems (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scott5js, SilentBrook

        The filibuster was mighty useful in the past and so I can see why they wouldn't want to kill it.  I think of a govt dvd I show to my classes where Chris Dodd (yeah, I know) talks about how the Senate is where the rights of the political minority are protected, whereas the House is where the will of the majority is respected.  

        I agree that Something Must Be Done to stop the abuse, but see why there is some reluctance.

        To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

        by dizzydean on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:46:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There's nothing unConstitutional about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott5js

      the Filibuster.

      The Senate is free to make its own rules.  These are the rules a Democratic majority made.

      I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

      by JesseCW on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:50:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, it is, if any group would sue (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, DeminNewJ

        Yes, the Senate can make its own rules, but Art. I Sect. 7 of the Constitution clearly states what the process is supposed to be:

        2. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
        Hamilton in Federalist 22:
        If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, … Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
        Madison in Federalist 58:
        It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

        To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

        by dizzydean on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 09:02:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the Federalist Papers still aren't law, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox

          just the opinions of one of several factions of men who hammered out an agreement.

          The Constitution does not lay out the process for getting a bill to the floor for a vote.  They left that up to each legislative session to determine for themselves.

          Filibusters are no more unConstitutional than the committee process.

          That's not say that I support them, or think that they are just, or even believe that should exist (although any Senator should be able to place a single 5 day hold on pending legislation to prevent dead-of-night bullshit and allow real debate).

          But not all unjust shit is unConstitutional.  See, for instance, forcing Citizens to buy products from for-profit corporations.

          I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

          by JesseCW on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 12:21:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  WTF was that all about? OMFG ! ! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            Art 1 Section 7 has ZERO to do with ended debate in the Senate.

            Freakin rule 22 is quite clear.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:58:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Respectfully, you are quite wrong (0+ / 0-)

              and maybe should take a refresher on the matter.  

              The Framers in Art. 1 Sect. 7 clearly indicate they did NOT intend a supermajority, and it's all over the Fed. papers, which are written by the guys who actually played the most important roles in getting us the Constitution.  SCOTUS has used them repeatedly and often through the years to show the Framers' intent.  To discount them as Jesse has is absurd.

              As for you, Roger, Rule 22 is NOT the Constitution.  Sorry, but it is a freakin' RULE. Art. 1 Sect 7 lays out HOW the process is supposed to work.  If you don't get this, then we can't talk.  

              To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

              by dizzydean on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 04:15:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  See here: Common Cause has a lawsuit (0+ / 0-)

            challenging it:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

            And yes, they cite the Federalist Papers....

            To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

            by dizzydean on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 04:25:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And the Fedalists Papers are still only one side (0+ / 0-)

              of a law, and still aren't law.

              The Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to decide the process for getting a bill to the floor for a vote.

              Bills die in committee all the time because 7 Senators vote against them.  

              Bills die all the time because 1 Senator won't put them on the calendar.

              I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

              by JesseCW on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:04:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That citation: process between branches (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          I read it and suggest you do the same. You could have done the same before posting that rubbish. Serious lack of due diligence on your part.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:56:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dude, you really don't know what you are talking (0+ / 0-)

            about here.  If you can't understand what they are saying, then go back and read the Fed Papers in detail.  Both of the one's I cited deal with procedure (Fed 22 highlighting the problems with the Art of Confed and 53 about procedure in Congress).  

            Perhaps (a) you could learn a few manners before calling what someone says "rubbish" and (b) learn a bit more about the Constitution before shooting from the hip.

             

            To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

            by dizzydean on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 04:19:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Leave the Federalist Papers out of it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          Those old papers are abused by both sides, I apply the KISS theorem here. I fear the supermajority too, & I dont need to Federalist Papers to arrive at the opinion.

          Repeal Burrs removal of the previous question rule? Or make cloture a smaller number? Harry Reid has had all the opportunity in the world to make these changes.

          What will the SCOTUS rule? These right wingers are so unpredictable. Will they see Art 1 Section 7 as germane? That the supermajority is only specified in a few instances, and none of those are the filibuster...... And after all Art 1 Section 5 says make your own damn rules.

          IF SCOTUS strikes down the filibuster, that probably ends the Reign of Tyranny by the minority. And a whole lot of powerful people dont want to see that happen.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:30:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site