Skip to main content

President Barack Obama delivers a statement announcing the nomination of three candidates for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 4, 2013. Nominees from left are: Robert Leon Wilkins,

So much for gentlemen's agreements with Senate Republicans. Once again, Republicans filibustered two of President Obama's nominees—Rep. Mel Watt at the Federal Housing Finance administration and Patricia Millett for the D.C. Circuit court—Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring the two nominees back, as well as two more D.C. Circuit nominees, and some Democrats are calling for him to use the nuclear option to break the filibuster.
“People are pretty upset,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who said if he was the Senate leader he’d move toward a rules change. “Support is growing for changing the rules when they play these games.”

“The pattern of ‘obstruct and delay’ has returned as the norm in the U.S. Senate with today’s filibuster of two highly qualified nominees,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) “It proves once again the need to reform the Senate’s rules.”

Senators from Jeff Merkley (D-OR) to Kay Hagan (D-NC) sounded their frustration after these votes, frustration that's going to just build, something Reid might be counting on. Reid apparently wants to give Republicans more rope with other pending nominations, particularly Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve, a nomination Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are threatening over Benghazi (because that makes sense).
“I’m going to file cloture on two other D.C. Circuit [nominees] and then make a decision. I’m not making it today,” Reid told reporters following a closed-door Democratic lunch. When informed that Republicans don’t believe Reid will invoke the nuclear option, Reid said, “Well, time will tell, won’t it?”
Reid had the votes and the will of his caucus to end the filibuster for executive nominations this summer, when Republicans backed down and allowed some long-blocked nominees through. He might not have the votes right now for ending the filibuster on judicial nominations, but more specious opposition from Republicans could force a change of mind among the handful of reluctant Democrats.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:07 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (36+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:07:16 AM PDT

  •  When the Stakes Are So Low They're In No (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, accumbens, raboof

    danger of being expected to govern.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:08:44 AM PDT

    •  It's like the Dems... (6+ / 0-)

      are scared that using the nuclear option will somehow end all civility in the Senate. Last I checked, Reid just got called an "asshole" by a top Republican in the Senate...does he really think that civility will get much worse than that?

      Time for Reid to man up and change the Senate rules.

      Wendy Davis for TX Governor, 2014!

      by GleninCA on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Time has told, already (0+ / 0-)

        Sen. Reid will never do it. Lucy yanks the football away again.

        He doesn't even have the fortitude to tell us liberals to buzz off, as Rep. Pelosi did with "off the table."

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:57:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It seems like Reid has the votes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, drmah

    If, and only, if the Republicans launch a filibuster and don't back down.  It feels like some Democrats insist in trying for a more diplomatic solution before invoking nuclear war.

    •  Yeah .. and exactly what are they expecting (16+ / 0-)

      from the Republicans ... after getting stabbed 2783562 times, they think the 2783563rd time will somehow be different? Sigh.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:16:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess I'd say (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psnyder, BleacherBum153

        Look at the overall acceptance of the Republican Party, and of the Tea Party, in specific.  

        I think if you look at those numbers, then a convincing argument could be made that it has worked, as a political tactic, to allow them to continue making more and more extreme demands and commentary.  

        In a way, you don't want to be giving the Republicans the chance to play the victim.  Even though I disagree with their use of the filibuster, I think so few people are aware of its misuse by Republicans, that going " nuclear"  would simply lead to sympathy for Repubs.  

        However, I can see a possible use for the nuclear option closer to the elections.  It would serve as a means of engaging the base if it's done closer to the elections.


        by otto on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:23:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pretzel logic (5+ / 0-)
          In a way, you don't want to be giving the Republicans the chance to play the victim.  Even though I disagree with their use of the filibuster, I think so few people are aware of its misuse by Republicans, that going " nuclear"  would simply lead to sympathy for Repubs.
          If very few people are aware of the Republicans misuse of the filibuster then going nuclear shouldn't have any impact on the Democrats public image.
          •  That's entirely up to the media to decide (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Like most events during Obama's presidency, one side is free to perform acts of sabotage in the shadows for years and the other side gets national media scrutiny for days when the shit finally hits the fan.

            (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

            by TrueBlueDem on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:06:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So because the media won't be fair, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Capt Crunch, Bear

              we'll just bemoan that fact and let this filibuster abuse continue?

              "The R's will say mean things, the media won't be fair!"

              Gee, it's almost like this excuse gets trotted out every time there's an opportunity for the Democrats to actually hit back and/or actually go for progressive legislation.

              The R's will continue to abuse the filibuster. The Dems will not do that because "grownups". Time to end that.

              Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

              by Boogalord on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:38:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

                Even if Reid goes nuclear, he will not have the support of his full caucus.  It will fail.  

                Now that we've identified how bad they are at supporting bold decision making, do you want them to make bold decisions?


                by otto on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:02:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Amazingly passive viewpoint (0+ / 0-)

              First, I don't think we should sit on our butts and do nothing. The "Talking Filibuster", at a minimum, needs to be the new rule.

              Second, Democrats need to respond to any unfair media coverage aggressively.

          •  You could be right (0+ / 0-)

            Where in my comment do you see me saying that these are my opinions?  

            That's one of the main problems in discussion around here.  I'm not an opinion writer.  I'm someone who is looking at a situation, and I'm relying on the things I've seen in similar situations to suggest a possible way that it could turn out.  

            Do you really really think that people only express their own opinion about how things will turn out?  That seems weird.  

            That seems to be an irrational way of discussing the possible fallout of things.  I'm pretty sure that you recognize that things can go differently that you currently believe, yes?

            I don't care that you want Democrats to be stronger, they aren't.  So if Reid were to do this, the Republican media would press very hard against Dems.  

            Now, given what you know about establishment Dems, do you believe that they would stand up for Reid?  No.  They would creak and break under media pressure.  

            So it seems strange to me that you can have such a dim view of the Democratic Party, yet also expect to them to stand up behind the idea of going nuclear.  

            That's twisted.  Don't you agree?  It's a little like the conservative notion that the government can't do anything right, but the US military is so good it's like God himself handcrafted each member from gold.


            by otto on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:01:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Classic "grown-up in the room" thinking (0+ / 0-)

          Can't make any kind of bold move against the Republicans because it might backfire... Somehow.

          Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

          by Boogalord on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

            I guess I shouldn't make commentary about something like this.

            Maybe in the future you can give me tips on how to discuss something in a fashion that will allow me to be more confrontational and provocative.  

            That way, I can annoy people more.  TIA!


            by otto on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:55:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think they are expecting Republicans (0+ / 0-)

        To throw a hissy fit for a few days, then cave.

        •  Reid is right. Throw the other 2 judges up too. (0+ / 0-)

          If they filibuster all three, I do think we will see the Nuclear Option. But timing is everything you know - he needs Yellen, Watts through and ENDA too, if he goes nuclear now then Yellen/Watts can still get through but ENDA will die.

      •  I am so sick they (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        haven't done this yet. What is Obama and Harry waiting for. Give me a break!

        "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between" Oscar Wilde

        by angry hopeful liberal on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:22:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What exactly is this "Nuclear war" (0+ / 0-)

      And what are the drawbacks to using it?? Why not?  

      "We need a revolution away from the plutocracy that runs Government."

      by hangingchad on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:44:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Democrats are seen as out for blood (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr MadAsHell

        That may stiffen Republican resolve to not cave the next time the debt ceiling comes up.

        I think the ideal scenario may be for some Republicans to give up to avoid Reid invoking the nuclear option, leading to GOP in-fighting over who is and isn't a real Republican.

        •  Can't let the Dems be seen as strong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That might stop the Republicans from implementing their agenda!

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:59:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh please (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          len chaitin
          That may stiffen Republican resolve to not cave the next time the debt ceiling comes up.

          The R's are going to be as obstructionist as possible, all the time, no matter what. There is literally nothing the Dems can do to shake them out of that, and there's nothing they can do to make it worse.

          I thought the R's were oh-so-defeated and discredited after the shutdown debacle? Hasn't it been made clear to the point where even the mainstream media had to admit that the R's are needlessly obstructive? I remember everyone on this site all giddy over how defeated they were because of the shutdown and now it's "oh no you can't do that, then the Republicans will be resurgent!"

          Well, which one is it?

          Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

          by Boogalord on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:58:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The number of votes is the key. He needs at least (6+ / 0-)

    50, along with Biden in the chair.  He probably has the support of all of his caucus for threatening the nuclear option.  But, how many will peal away if he actually presses the button?  There lies the nub of the question.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:16:39 AM PDT

  •  But wait, Mitch said . . . (0+ / 0-)

    Harry is the problem for repeatedly cutting off debate (by filing cloture).  

  •  nyukyuler nt (0+ / 0-)


    by otto on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

  •  The Cruz Lee Paul Kabal are calling the shots..... (0+ / 0-)

    everybody knows it except their victims........Give 'em some more rope.

    •  The rest of the GOP caucus can (0+ / 0-)

      tell them to stuff by voting for cloture -- and by not objecting to unanimous consent requests when one of those three is not in the chamber.

      With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:28:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Stop or I'll yell stop again!" (10+ / 0-)

    It was a joke about British Bobbies but could also apply to Reid and the nuclear option.

  •  gotta go Nuke, beat back the Tea Pary Zombies NOW (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up!

    by Churchill on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:22:24 AM PDT

  •  USA is sinking; quit screwing around Harry Reid (4+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up!

    by Churchill on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:23:35 AM PDT

  •  Why are Dems (7+ / 0-)

    so spineless? If Republicans insist on abusing the rules, change the rules. This isn't a game--we're trying to run a country here...

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:23:41 AM PDT

  •  No reason not to - the GOP would/will (7+ / 0-)

    If the GOP controlled the Senate and the Democrats were blocking every nomination it would take the GOP about 5 minutes to end the filibuster,  just like they said they would back when Bush was President.  It is inevitable and the Dems might as well get it over with and get their nominees in place.  Otherwise just nominates some Republicans for these seats, because that is how it will end up.

    The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

    by Do Something on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:25:45 AM PDT

  •  The GOP has no intention of governing (6+ / 0-)

    they never have.  Since the election of Barack Obama they have thrown up every roadblock they could imagine.  they gum up the works and they derail any work.

    They shutdown the government over ACA and then bitched that ACA was working correctly.

    They are TROLLS.

  •  The GOP's been going nuclear for over 2 years (13+ / 0-)

    If you live in a State that is completely controlled by the GOP, you know that the GOP has been going nuclear every single day.

    I live in Michigan, and this namby-pamby hesitance on Senate Democrats part is laughable.

    the GOP rammed through right to work laws in a lame duck session after the last election. They forced the City of Detroit into Bankruptcy.

    They are now pushing abortion restrictions, voter ID laws and a way to rig the state courts to prevent meaningful judicial review of their batshit legislating.

    And that's just been in Michigan. we all know about what's been happening in Wisconsin, and North Carolina to take two examples.

    I just published a diary about this stuff this morning:

    These assclowns need to wake the fuck up!

  •  Gutless, spineless, feckless, chickenshit, passive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    420 forever, Capt Crunch

    etc.  That's them Dems.  Mostly all a waste of time most of the time.  Oh, I left out one: pathetic.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:32:07 AM PDT

  •  I agree with Sen. Merkley: (6+ / 0-)
    Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, who favors a change in rules for judges, said that he sensed reluctance among his colleagues to eliminate filibusters against judicial nominees in the event that Democrats found themselves in the minority in the future.

    “They’ll say, ‘Those folks are two or four years. They’re not lifetime appointments like judges,’ ” he said. “And so with judges we want to protect and sustain the ability to block,” he said, adding that he did not share that view because any majority can change the rules at any point and render the judicial filibuster obsolete.

    Preserving a filibuster on judicial nominees is not going to protect against judges you disagree with down the line if you’re in the minority,” Mr. Merkley said.

    "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

    by Inland on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:33:20 AM PDT

  •  not gonna happen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    both parties are beholden to the same special interests. the status quo right now is in the best interest of the special interests. anything "radical" like getting things done is a challenge to the status quo. I hope I'm wrong again but they're all pretty dug in thinking of the next election. we've been watching the same kabuki dance around here since 2003 and before.

    Directing the people powered movie starring Howard Dean and YOU!

    by deantv on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:34:32 AM PDT

  •  The key is holding the Senate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lina, Matt Z
    When is enough going to be enough for Senate Democrats to go nuclear?
    When they're convinced that the Democrats will hold the Senate for the foreseeable future. That's the whole thing right there.
    •  and that is why a rule change might come (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      back and bite them. I think the threat is sometimes an effective tool. Who knows what the next election will bring.

    •  There will never be certainty of that, ever. (0+ / 0-)

      So I guess the alternative is let the R's abuse the filibuster and let them obstruct Dem Presidents forevermore, eh?

      Cause the Dems will totally use the filibuster like this when (god forbid) an R gets back in the office.

      Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

      by Boogalord on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:02:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We need to identify the dems against (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, starduster, rlochow, Matt Z

    the nuclear option and be relentless with them. It is way past time to be allowing this obstruction to continue.

  •  Republicans want scorched earth? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlochow, Eric Nelson

    Drop the bomb.

  •  f "nuclear" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    White Buffalo, Eric Nelson

    "medieval on their asses" is the only way to go!

  •  It's a fundraising tool for the GOP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    White Buffalo, rlochow, Eric Nelson

    Going radical and shutting down government is a very effective tool for GOP fundraising, among corporations and individuals.

    Until we get serious about campaign finance reform, including public financing of political campaigns, this won't stop.  The GoP will keep finding ways to shut down government at the federal and state level to raise cash.

    Publicly funded,time-defined campaigns, similar to England's regulations, is the only way to restore sensible, representative government.

    If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

    by Betty Pinson on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:44:45 AM PDT

  •  Why the hesitation? (5+ / 0-)

    It is clear (and many above have made the point) that if the Republicans did win the Senate (heaven forbid!), they would go nuclear in a New York second to ram through their bills. To worry about it also being a weapon for the Rethugs is to ignore all the bills rammed through in the Republican-controlled state legislatures-they don't care who is in their way. If changing (or even ignoring) the rules gets their bills through, then they do it and don't look back.

    Time for the Democratic majority to flex that spine they showed a few weeks ago before it goes soft again!

  •  The Constitution DOES NOT PROVIDE (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, Simplify, rlochow

    ... for Filibuster of Nominee's. PERIOD.

    ADVISE AND CONSENT (or not), but Filibuster is simply not in the law.

    The fact the leadership for decades has allowed it does NOT make it legal.

    It is in fact possibly a violation of the due process rights of the nominee. OF THE NOMINEE, meaning it is something they could actually sue over and the court would have jurisdiction.... ie: not a intrabody rules issue, but a Constitutional Rights violation of a citizen.

    So, No, Harry Reid doesn't have to go nuclear, he simply has to OBEY THE FUCKING LAW.

  •  Seeing (0+ / 0-)

    is believing. I've heard it all before.

  •  Going 'nuclear'. (0+ / 0-)

    The state of mutual assured destruction politics.

    Take me somewhere nice. Reality doesn't play fair. - 16382

    by glb3 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:06:17 AM PDT

  •  A legal scholar called the R's behavior (0+ / 0-)

    essentially unconstitutional today on NPR's Morning Edition.  Can any lawyers here comment whether there any way to take up that challenge?  It is such a disgrace and abuse what the R's are doing.

    Coburn was quoted too, full of bluster saying that we will back down.  Are we so sure?

  •  Republicans will get rid of the filibuster (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boogalord, Eric Nelson, len chaitin

    the moment they have 51 votes in the Senate. There is no question about this. Also, I think it is important that elections have consequences again and that American Voters regain confidence into the system. The complete impasse in governing in the last years has been a disaster for this nation. We have seen in CA how you get out of this. The filibuster needs to end. If Democrats don't do it now, the Republicans certainly will when given a chance.

  •  So Senate know-it-alls, a question. (0+ / 0-)

    If Reid and the Dem caucus goes nuclear, how will it go down? Are there signs to look for like Biden appearing in the Capitol Bldg before a vote on a nominee, Dems leaving a caucus meeting with eye-black on?

    Or will it be telegraphed way in advance ?

    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.

    by Magster on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:08:59 AM PDT

  •  i have had enough (0+ / 0-)

    i will support financially candidates like sen warren but i refuse to donate to the dem party anymore, they care more about their gop peers than they do their supporters with the exception of when asking for donations at election time and that is short lived.

  •  And really, what is the risk long term (0+ / 0-)

    in doing so? What are the chances of a Republican Presidency, particularly one where they control the Senate, too? Vanishingly small.

    •  The Dems will never filibuster anyway (0+ / 0-)

      Heck, they let Sam Alito through. The filibuster only exists for Republicans. Past time to end it.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:02:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Short Answer? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    The Mighty Filibuster is a key Stage Prop at the Kabuki Theater of the Absurd.

    Democrats could erase the Filibuster entirely.

    But they don't.

    Those who defend keeping it often point out that the (D)'s need it to stop odious (R)'s when they are in power.

    How'd that defense work out under Bush?

    How'd that work out for the Tax Cuts for the Wealthy under (R)?

    How'd that work out for the Iraqi invasion under (R)?

    How'd that work out for (R)'s odious SC nominees (not to mention the others)?

    How'd that work out for NCLB?

    How'd that work out for the odious Patriot Act?

    To name but a few examples.

    But when it comes to Progressive Policies / Appointments?  Why, the Mighty Filibuster is Johnny-On-The-Spot!

    Waking Up Yet?

    Disclaimer:  I, like most, do enjoy the recurring Act of Harry Reid & the Democrats furiously putting on a show of "Filibuster Reform".  Always a crowd-pleaser.  And it never gets old!

    The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:19:47 AM PDT

  •  NEVER! Do they want (0+ / 0-)

    the economy to get better? Do they care about the Hungry? The Elderly? Veterans? Minorities? Kids? Education? Voting Rights? etc etc etc...

    No, I'm not talking about what they say and write about---I'm talking about what they Do or in this case-what they Don't do!

    IF the filibuster would have been reformed in 2011, 2 Years post PBO's inauguration We would NOT be "here" today. Period.
    By Refusing to fix this for the past 2 Years-Reid/Dems who OPPOSED reform have Aided the GOP in wreaking havoc upon this country and they got away with trying to blame the Whole thing on the GOP.
    The "window" for change is the first hours of the new congress every two years, as I understand it...I get why/how they couldn't "see" how bad it could get in 2009--but post McConnell coming on tv in Feb of 2009 making his infamous commitment to making PBO a one term POTUS-the gloves shoulda came off--but that didn't happen and we need to examine Why, imo!
    Why don't We want to accept the truth about "some" Dems in leadership and publicly challenge their votes?

  •  Both parties prize the option (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify, Boogalord

    of letting a minority in Congress block them from carrying out the will of the public. Because the public often wants them to do things that the plutocracy doesn't. And both parties are servants of the plutocracy.

    It's that simple.

  •  How about never? (0+ / 0-)

    Since Obama was elected President I have seen no indication that "Leader" Reid will use the nuclear option to prevent Republican obstructionism.

    How can he be replaced with someone who has the balls to do it?

  •  "The pattern of (0+ / 0-)

    ‘obstruct and delay’ has returned" Returned? It never left! In what Senate does this guy serve?

  •  Return the Original Filibuster (0+ / 0-)

    Why can't we return to the original Filibuster rules?  If a senator wants to block legislation, they have to actually talk until either they can't talk any more, or the majority caves from boredom.
    The idea that instead of having to work hard to block legislation, you could just file a motion, is the reason the filibuster stopped working!

    The President has the power to delay funding of (for instance) military contracts until after the debt ceiling is lifted

    by computant on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:58:48 AM PDT

  •  Isn't the "Nuclear Option" case-by-case? (0+ / 0-)

    As I understand the "Nuclear Option" rather than the "Constitutional Option" is that the "Nuclear Option" is done in response to one filibuster because it is "the sense of the Senate" that further debate is "dilatory, vexatious and unnecessary"?

    The "Constitutional Option" is a rules change at the beginning of a session to apply across the board in all cases.

    Will going nuclear on these few nominees really change the rules?

    We all know that the rules now allow the Senate to go nuclear.

    The majority has simply not made the motion to the presiding officer.

    Making the motion in one case is not fundamental change like the "constitutional option" would be.

  •  At some point, someone has to say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    "This is ridiculous" and end the terror imposed on our nation by the Tea Party and their enablers, the Koch Bros.

  •  Screw waiting, time to nuke Harry. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

    by Back In Blue on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:12:54 PM PDT

  •   Rachel Maddow spoke with Harry Reid a couple.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    ..of days ago. She asked him whether it was time to make further rules changes as he had asssured her months prior in this first video:

    “I know what to do..”
    – Harry Reid

     (filibuster talk begins @ minute 5:00 | short ad - sorry)
    transcript @ link:

    Just a couple of days ago Rachel Maddow had another sit down conversation with Harry Reid, where he again assured her that he has in under control:
    transcript @ link:

    Now important nominees are being blocked. Rachel asks Reid if he regrets not making more changes. The deal with McConnell to stop abusing the filibuster didn't stop the obstruction.
     Reid assures her that changes have been made.

    "things have changed" .. stay tuned

    - Harry Reid

    Rachel reports that Reid has said that taking away the filibuster is still on the table.
  •  At this point, I am inclined to agree. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Our political system is mired in gridlock and inefficiency, which is pretty obvious to even the untrained eye. Many people smarter than I have made the claim that our checks and balances make it practically impossible for any legitimate progress to be made, and that we are facing systematic failure of our governing processes. It seems as though we would be best suited with a governmental structure akin to Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, where the party in power is pretty much free to pass whatever laws they want, and if the public opposes those laws, then the party in power will quickly become the party out of power. While moving to a parliamentary system is not feasible, I feel as though streamlining the Senate is feasible. Even considering the times when the Republicans will be in power and we are not, I feel as though the filibuster and the various delays built into the Senate are no longer serving their original purpose, and I think that they need to be abolished. Majority rule might be a shock to the old guard in the Senate, but we need to be able to get things done.

    19, FL-07. University of Central Florida student pursuing a B.A. in Political Science, future teacher, and hopeful presidential candidate in 2044. "The Republican vision is clear: I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." -Elizabeth Warren.

    by Tyler Yeargain on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:56:36 PM PDT

  •  It's not surprising (0+ / 0-)

    the GOP want to stop the President from getting more liberal judges on the federal bench.  That would make it more difficult to push their backdoor and often illegal agenda through.  This is a high-stakes game for control of the federal courts and the democratic congress needs to realize it and play hardball!

  •  Moving toward going nuclear is overdue. (0+ / 0-)

    The last time Reid did it, Republicans backed.down. We should have gone nuclear as soon as the "Gang of Fourteen" was abandoned by Republicans when Obama was sworn in (the first time!!!).

    The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

    by Pacifist on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:30:39 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site