Harry Reid letter to DNC

[renodoc]

> Dear xxxxx,
>
> Today I stood in front of the Supreme Court and collected more than 1 million
> petitions from people all across America. Standing there, I heard your voices
> urging the Senate to reject any attempt to do away with the system of checks and
> balances our founding fathers created to protect the rights and voices of all
> Americans.
>
> I want to say thank you for standing up and lending your voice to this debate.
>
> Republicans want to go "nuclear" and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for
> President Bush. They want to silence Senate Democrats -- the one remaining check
> on President Bush's power. If they can do away with debate in the Senate, they
> can get whatever they want -- right-wing Supreme Court Justices, Social Security
> privatization, and tax breaks for the wealthy that will plunge us deeper in
> debt.
>
> But Senate Democrats are going to fight them every step of the way. And this
> fight will be different than any other fight in the history of the Senate --
> because it will include you.
>
> The Republicans are arrogant with power. If they don't like the rules, they
> break them. If they don't like someone standing in their way, they attack them.
> We have some Republicans in the Senate that are considering throwing out 200
> years of Senate history in order to pack the courts with right wing judges. And
> we have a Republican Leader in the House of Representatives who attacks judges
> who don't agree with him and corrupts our government by running roughshod over
> the ethics committee.
>
> It's a complete abuse of power by the Republicans and if they can get away with
> this on judges, they will get away with this on legislation like Social Security
> too. There is no distinction.
>
> This is about more than a few unqualified judges, this is about protecting the
> rights of disabled Americans to work, the rights of minorities to vote, the
> rights of every American to have clean air, safe drinking water and be heard in
> Washington.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Harry Reid
>


Boy those republicans sound mean. Safe water? Clean air? Right to vote? Bad, nasty republicans.

[FishHooks]

Haha that was comedy.

No different from any of the ridiculous letters I get from the Republicans, except

[ QUOTE ]
And we have a Republican Leader in the House of Representatives who attacks judges who don't agree with him and corrupts our government by running roughshod over the ethics committee.

[/ QUOTE ]

is true.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans want to go "nuclear" and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for
> President Bush. They want to silence Senate Democrats -- the one remaining check
> on President Bush's power. If they can do away with debate in the Senate, they
> can get whatever they want

[/ QUOTE ]

Republicans want to do away with debate in the Senate? He's talking about the filibuster issue, correct? Since when does "filibuster" = "debate" ?

Sounds incredibly disingenous to me.

Republicans can go nuclear if they want, but be forewarned that when Democrats come into power again, they won't turn the other cheek. I wonder if Republicans really want to cross that line. They aren't going to rule forever, after all. My comments are not as to the morality of using the filibuster in this way, but are purely political.

[MtSmalls]

Frist's "nuclear" option, is to change the number of votes to end debate from 60 to 51. "Cloture" votes, that is votes to end discussion on a bill before the Senate, must take place before the bill itself is voted on. The current use of a filibuster, is to gather 41 votes, so that discussion is left open.

With the current Republican majority in the Senate, assuming party lines are adhered to (as they most often are) changing the number of votes to 51 to end debate, COULD and likely would eliminate debate on many bills. i.e. Frist brings the Energy bill before the Senate, immediately calls for a cloture vote, the ReThugs vote on Party lines both to end debate and to pass the bill (two separate votes), and there is NO debate on the bill....

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the explanation.

[bobman0330]

It seems highly unlikely that cloture would be used to end all debates, purely because it would look so bad from a PR perspective. Especially when, if they have 51 votes to kill debate, they'll have 51 votes for the bill regardless of what is said. It's more likely that it would be reserved for filibuster situations, as it is now.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Frist's "nuclear" option, is to change the number of votes to end debate from 60 to 51.

[/ QUOTE ]

On judicial appointments only. I'd also point out that the fillibuster of judicial appointments has been around a relatively short period of time (since 1949 I believe). Basically the fillibuster has not been used to kill a judicial appointments until recently. People point to the Fortas nomination but Fortas withdrew his name after a vote to end cloture showed that he would not have been confirmed in an up and down vote.

[MtSmalls]

Your comment pre-supposes that this adminstration cares about its PR and/or approval. Cloture votes are a procedural issue, and ALWAYS preceed a formal vote on any bill or appointment in the Senate.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Frist's "nuclear" option, is to change the number of votes to end debate from 60 to 51. "Cloture" votes, that is votes to end discussion on a bill before the Senate, must take place before the bill itself is voted on. The current use of a filibuster, is to gather 41 votes, so that discussion is left open.

With the current Republican majority in the Senate, assuming party lines are adhered to (as they most often are) changing the number of votes to 51 to end debate, COULD and likely would eliminate debate on many bills. i.e. Frist brings the Energy bill before the Senate, immediately calls for a cloture vote, the ReThugs vote on Party lines both to end debate and to pass the bill (two separate votes), and there is NO debate on the bill....

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not technically true. The "nuke option" is only for judicial nominees because you can't really debate a candidate. You either like them or don't like them. If they (Republicans) invoke the nuclear option, it will not effect the legislative filibuster. It just removes the supermajority needed to advise and consent the candidate nominated by the executive branch.

Don't make it out more than it is. Also, the old "Mr. Smith" filibuster would always be intact even with the nuclear option.

If the "nuclear option" involved the legislative filibuster, I don't think it would have support in the Republican party.

-Gryph

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a complete abuse of power by the Republicans and if they can get away with
> this on judges, they will get away with this on legislation like Social Security
> too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reminds me of Old Glory Robot Insurance (http://www.robotcombat.com/oldglory1.html)

Scare the old people, those evil republicans will steal your social security. I'm surprised there wasn't a "for the children" reference in there as well.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Your comment pre-supposes that this adminstration cares about its PR and/or approval. Cloture votes are a procedural issue, and ALWAYS preceed a formal vote on any bill or appointment in the Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about? "This administration" has nothing to do with this. Find me 51 senators who don't care about PR and we can talk.

[andyfox]

"Sounds incredibly disingenous to me."

A politician disingenuous? Surely you jest. /images/graemlins/grin.gif