Lion of the Blogosphere

The end of the filibuster

Senate Democrats are going to abolish the procedural rule that allows the opposing minority party to filibuster the President’s nominees.

This seems like a smart idea for Democrats, given that it’s unlikely that there will ever be another Republican president.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Posted in Politics

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’m not so sure. Black violence is starting to become unavoidable even by the press who recall very well what happened last time black violence became a non-suppressible phenomenon, Nixon was elected.

    Curle

    November 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    • To you really think that black violence will affect the vote of one Latino, Single mother, labor union member, trial lawyer, or government employee. The most that a very high crime rate can do is encourage Asians to isolate themselves more than they already are.

      superdestroyer

      November 21, 2013 at 5:32 PM

    • Yeah, but the GOP is not going to campaign on black crime – or any other social issue. Besides, why would, say, Hispanics, care that blacks are attacking whites?

      Bernie

      November 21, 2013 at 5:39 PM

      • Rs only need a slight uptick in the white vote to win the presidency. And, Nixon didn’t have to call out blacks; people got the message. Sometimes events create their own momentum.

        Curle

        November 21, 2013 at 9:48 PM

      • “Rs only need a slight uptick in the white vote to win the presidency. And, Nixon didn’t have to call out blacks; people got the message.”

        True enough. But Republicans won’t even do this. They are scared of being called racist. The party that cannot even mention affirmative action (a massively unpopular government policy) is not going to even tip-toe around black crime.

        Bernie

        November 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM

      • “The party that cannot even mention affirmative action (a massively unpopular government policy) is not going to even tip-toe around black crime.” ————–

        They don’t need to. Surrogates can do it. The media has been performing this role for the Ds for years. Ds didn’t have to come out punching over Matthew Shepard to rally those aligned with that issue. The Rachel Maddows and Jon Stewarts of the day did the heavy lifting for them. Rs can find similar surrogates.

        Curle

        November 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM

    • “Black violence is starting to become unavoidable”

      No its not. It is much lower than before, and increasingly not aimed at regular voters. It will continue to decline as young blacks, like other young people, becoming increasingly fat and addicted to 1000 channel TV, internet, and video games. Their levels of testosterone will also decline due to obesity and all the chemicals in junk food and plastic.

      The drug trade is also in decline due to lower prices, lower use, and gradually MJ legalization and decriminalization.

      Street muggins are also becoming a waste of time because rich people don’t carry much cash anymore, and cell phones can be remotely disabled or tracked if stolen.

      There are also fewer young blacks due to demographic decline and they are less impulsive due to much less lead in the air and old housing. And the violent ones have more trouble staying out of jail due to crime being reported on cell phones instantly, cameras everywhere, and their own idiocy in bragging online about their crimes.

      Tile

      November 21, 2013 at 11:20 PM

      • Crime has gone up the last two years. Blacks are not in demographic decline either as a percentage of the population or in overall numbers. They are projected to be 16% of the population by 2050 (they are 13% now and were 12% in 2000). Crime declined because of longer jail sentences (many due to drug crimes) and tougher policing (like stop and frisk). Judges appointed by Republican presidents helped allow these reforms. We will not get any judges appointed by Republican presidents anymore. While there are some Democrats who are tough on crime there are many more who view this as “racist” because it has a disparate impact on blacks (who are the majority of violent criminals).

        Bernie

        November 22, 2013 at 8:11 AM

      • ““Black violence is starting to become unavoidable” No its not. It is much lower than before, and increasingly not aimed at regular voters.”

        By unavoidable I was referencing the ability of the media to suppress or shape news of black violence, which has been the norm but is being undermined by the internet and outlets like Drudge. Plus, with violence continuing in spite of the safety net the old stand-by poverty apology is becoming less plausible and less viable as a shield against white judgment of black violence which is appearing more and more to be a feature not a bug.

        Curle

        November 22, 2013 at 10:16 AM

      • “By unavoidable I was referencing the ability of the media to suppress or shape news of black violence”

        Sure the elite media covers up black violence, but local news seems to play it up since every decent city has 3 to 7 local news stations competing. “If it bleeds it leads.”

        I could be wrong about current practice since I don’t watch it that much anymore, but I routinely see black crime reported, complete with mug shots of the perps.

        Smaller cities’ local news often make black violence a multi-day story. First they report the crime when it happens, next they report on the vic’s funeral or hospital release, then they show the perp getting charged at the local courthouse, then the plea deal or conviction.

        What doesn’t get aired on local TV, but also doesn’t appear much in even Tea Party / hard right sources like worldnetdaily, is the actual gigantic difference in crime rates. Even Ron Unz of all people goes to great lengths to pretend it doesn’t exist.

        Tile

        November 23, 2013 at 3:28 AM

  2. Maybe this is specifically aimed at Ted Cruz.

    Camlost

    November 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    • That wasn’t a filibuster. And Dems love Cruz, btw. I don’t know how him and Paul Ryan continue to get the serious coverage that they do. Actually, I do. Money.

      Dr. Grzlickson

      November 22, 2013 at 12:15 AM

  3. Time to do away with 18th century relics like electoral colleges too. It is not fair to let the whims of a few hundred thousands of Ohio union members to decide the Presidential election every time.

    Colmainen

    November 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    • You really don’t want that (assuming you’re a republican). I’d be happy to go with a popular vote. And there’s no reason for North Dakota to have the same number of Senators as California.

      Dr. Grzlickson

      November 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    • Maybe, but why waste the effort? Whether they go to a popular vote or stick with an electoral college it is a permanent Democrat government forever.

      Bernie

      November 21, 2013 at 5:41 PM

  4. It has always seemed to me that requiring a super-majority to do something when the constitution doesn’t require it is unconstitutional anyway.

    CamelCaseRob

    November 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

    • The rule was constitutional because there was always a means by which the majority could exert their will (by changing the rule with a simple majority) which is what they did today. The rule was never anything more than a tradition encapsulated as a rule. Had the rule purported that it could never be changed or only changed by a 2/3rd vote, it would have been unconstitutional.

      Curle

      November 21, 2013 at 9:30 PM

  5. Not difficult to figure out where this is coming from. The Senate is very likely to flip next year, and Obama and Reid figure they have 13 months to pack the courts with as many of their nominees as they can before then.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    November 21, 2013 at 2:50 PM

    • And what states do you think the Republicans are going to pick up in 2014. The Democrats are beginning to signal that they now that the time of conservative politics is over and that the U.S. will soon be a one party state. If the Republicans are stupid enough to pass comprehensive immigraiton reform, they could totally irrelvant in less than a decade.

      superdestroyer

      November 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM

      • Republicans need six more seats to hold the Senate majority in 2015.

        Democrats will lose senate seats to Republicans in Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, and West Virginia. Those seats are practically safe Republican locks, especially with Obamacare and the new Democratic push for gun control.

        So Republicans just need two more seats from the toss-up states. Those are North Carolina, Alaska, and Louisiana. Even Colorado isn’t looking all that safe. So there’s a pretty good chance for the Rs.

        There are no Republican seats in danger of passing to Democrats.

        Owen

        November 21, 2013 at 7:13 PM

  6. I’m guessing Harry Reid figures there isn’t much chance that the Republicans will be able to win the Senate next year. Otherwise it seems unlikely he would have made this move now, with only about a year of operating without the filibuster.

    I think Republicans have at least an even shot to get a Senate majority or even win back the Presidency, however thats only through 2020. After that, there is a new census and redistricting, and with or without amnesty demography is destiny, so the Republicans will either change radically or slowly slide into the dustbin of history.

    Mike

    November 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM

  7. Its actually very likely that a republican will be president in four years.

    jack

    November 22, 2013 at 1:35 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: