Hypocrite Republicans Are Trying To Take Away Senate Democrats' Power To Filibuster

[Panich52]

After six years of obstructing every move that President Obama made, House Republicans are demanding that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) outlaw all Democratic filibusters.

The Hill reported: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/12/years-obstructing-obama-republicans-outlaw-senate-filibusters.html

A growing number of House GOP conservatives are pressuring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday to invoke the “nuclear option” and change the chamber’s rules to pass a bill defunding President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Reps. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) and Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said McConnell should change Senate rules, so the House-passed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill, which includes language to revoke Obama’s immigration-related actions, can bypass a Democratic filibuster in the upper chamber.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) also endorsed the idea at a Thursday news conference. He said there’s a “way to change the rules to allow us to move forward” and “take away the ability to filibuster.”

For six years, Republicans touted the virtues of the filibuster. They were outraged when then-Majority Leader Harry Reid modified the filibuster rules so that more of the president’s nominees could be confirmed, but that all changed now that the shoe is on the other foot.

Read More:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/12/years-obstructing-obama-republicans-outlaw-senate-filibusters.html

..

[Xyzse]

1. Such is always the case.

I still consider the filibuster option as needed and necessary, however the rules should state that they actually have to do the filibuster, not stop things just because of a threat of one.

A threat of one is cheap because they don't actually have to do a thing other than say, they will. Not much of them have the fortitude to actually do it.

[world wide wally]

2. I actually thought that was the first thing they would do when they had control of the Senate

[Fred Sanders]

13. They can not change the rules now, but they can try the nuclear option on individual bills.

This is just more cover for the fact Republicans are pissing against the wind on the whole government shutdown over an amendment on immigration that has nothing to do with Homeland Security.

The last desperate attempts before they cave to reality. So...the usual hostage taking except this time America is bored of them.

[onenote]

14. Was fairly certain that they wouldn't

At least three reasons:

Optics: it would look bad to change the rule immediately after taking control

Practical: the Repubs are concerned that 2016 could result in a turnaround in control of the Senate.

Also practical: Without a veto-proof majority, overcoming a filibuster doesn't end up accomplishing that much.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. Let them do it and let the United States see them drop their "democratic" masks and show them for

the dictators they really are while pissing off the majority of Americans who will see that not the Democratic Party but the Republican "Koch Bros" Party are the ones trying to destroy America. Because that's all that move will accomplish, seeing that they don't have a Republican in the White House to sign off on their destructive bills and they don't have 67 seats in the Senate to override President Obama's certain veto.

So let them.

[yeoman6987]

6. Were talking about the same Americabs who just voted these guys in?

I think the ones asking this are newly elected Republicans who were not in Congress the last six years. President Obama supports it too.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. President Obama doesn't support getting rid of the filibuster. He called for getting rid of routine

use of the filibuster.

Probably the one thing that we could change without a constitutional amendment that would make a difference here would be the elimination of the routine use of the filibuster in the Senate. Because I think that does, in an era in which the parties are more polarized, it almost ensures greater gridlock and less clarity in terms of the positions of the parties. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires it. The framers were pretty good about designing a House, a Senate, two years versus six-year terms, every state getting two senators. There were a whole bunch of things in there to assure that a majority didn't just run rampant. The filibuster in this modern age probably just torques it too far in the direction of a majority party not being able to govern effectively and move forward its platform. And I think that's an area where we can make some improvement.
http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-domestic-policy-transcript (scroll down to the number 13 highlighted in a yellow circle).

[yeoman6987]

8. Thanks! It was a few days ago and didn't get the full picture

[BlueCaliDem]

9. You're welcome! eom

[dsc]

12. It would be the biggest favor they could do for us

One big reason people get turned off by politics is that elections have way too little to do with policy outcomes. Let them pass these bills and let the President veto them. Then make the election of 2016 about the policies we would pass vs the ones they would.

[madville]

4. The majority party always complains about the filibuster rules

And the minority party always uses it. It's a good thing Reid didn't change it when they were in the majority like everyone wanted them to the last few years.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. It wasn't a "good thing" for Americans, but it was a fair decision for the Senate.

Republicans had routinely threatened to use the constitutional option to get rid of the filibuster if Democrats didn't do as they wanted when Bush was president. That's why they got so much through. They knew they'd be able to make it a reality and push all their RW bills through - and for the most part, they did just by threatening a nuclear option - since Duhbya would sign anything Republicans sent to his desk (which is a valid reason why we need a president who has had higher education and is trained to think for her/himself although the Constitution doesn't require that s/he be college educated).

[YarnAddict]

11. Uh . . .

Reid did change it.

I warned everyone here who was cheering him on, high fiving, and just generally doing an endzone dance to be careful what they wished for. Most people here thought the GOP was DOA, and would NEVER regain power.

I just remember when a history prof in college confidently predicted that the Republican Party was going to fade away. Watergate was a recent memory, we had elected Jimmy Carter, and people were just generally fed up with everything and everyone Republican. That was 1978 or 1979, and we were mere months from the election of Ronnie Raygun.

The Republican Party could as easily be called the Zombie Party, because it always seems to come back when you least expect it.

[madville]

15. Reid did not change the filibuster for legislation

The change the Democrats made last session only applies to confirming Judicial and other Administration appointees like department/agency secretaries and ambassadors.

[Fumesucker]

5. Roughly as predictable as gravity...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6071829

Wanna bet that 51 is the new 60 in the Senate now that Republicans hold it?