Have you heard about...? (Politics edition)

[Buffalo Budd]

I feel companies like Monsanto have taken the route of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry in that they have tried to cover up shit as they've gone along. I know that's the world we live in, everything is a smoke screen but when we're talking about what we and our children eat, it's a lot more tangible and serious to me. They have also taken complete advantage of developing countries, just ask India or Brazil how much Monsanto has helped out their agriculture industry.
The idea of one company owning the world's seed supply is ludicrous imo.

[runawayjimbo]

I don't think the Dems have the spine to go nuclear on SCOTUS nominations.  I hope I'm wrong though, because the Republicans will do it in a heart beat if Trump wins and they keep the Senate.

You mean "if" Trump loses? If he wins and they keep Senate problem goes away

[ytowndan]

I don't think the Dems have the spine to go nuclear on SCOTUS nominations.  I hope I'm wrong though, because the Republicans will do it in a heart beat if Trump wins and they keep the Senate.

You mean "if" Trump loses? If he wins and they keep Senate problem goes away

I'm saying if Trump wins and the Republicans keep the senate they (the Republicans) will go nuclear in a heartbeat to stop a Democratic filibuster.  Basically, the Dems don't have the balls to do what the Republicans would do without question.  But I hope I'm wrong.

[runawayjimbo]

I don't think the Dems have the spine to go nuclear on SCOTUS nominations.  I hope I'm wrong though, because the Republicans will do it in a heart beat if Trump wins and they keep the Senate.

You mean "if" Trump loses? If he wins and they keep Senate problem goes away

I'm saying if Trump wins and the Republicans keep the senate they (the Republicans) will go nuclear in a heartbeat to stop a Democratic filibuster.  Basically, the Dems don't have the balls to do what the Republicans would do without question.  But I hope I'm wrong.

Oh, gotcha. I mean, the Dems already enacted it in part for all other nominees, so I don't see why they wouldn't go full hog if the GOP forces their hand. Plus, there will be far more public outcry if the dumbasses did try to stand in the way.

Of course, it's all moot cause he ain't gonna win.

[VDB]

I don't so much mind the filibuster in theory -- tyranny of the majority, and all that -- but for god's sake we routinely elect our own direct representatives with plurality vote totals, so why is a simple majority suddenly so much to ask when it comes to staffing the executive and legislative branches of government?

[Hicks]

I don't so much mind the filibuster in theory -- tyranny of the majority, and all that -- but for god's sake we routinely elect our own direct representatives with plurality vote totals, so why is a simple majority suddenly so much to ask when it comes to staffing the executive and legislative branches of government?

There was a time when the filibuster made sense.

In today's toxic political environment with our government being usurped by corporate interests and run by essentially petulant children, that time has come and gone. 

[ytowndan]

I have no issue with them taking to the floor and making their case.  Even if one of them wants to be a dick and piss in a bag for 24 hours while reading names from the phone book.  If we want to call that filibustering, then I'm not only okay with it, I encourage it (maybe not the piss bag thing  :wink: ).

But after everyone's had a chance to say their piece in an attempt to whip votes in their favor, or to just plain stall things for a while out of protest so their base can start making phone calls, an up or down vote needs to take place.  And I feel that way about legislation, too.  The senate is already the most malapportioned legislative body in the democratic world.  Moving the goal posts to 60% on top of that is just plain wrong. 

/two cents

[VDB]

The senate is already the most malapportioned legislative body in the democratic world.  Moving the goal posts to 60% on top of that is just plain wrong. 

Agreed entirely. Giving Montana the same number of senators as New York was supposed to be a bulwark against federal overreach, so that the states could still have a shot at handling their own affairs. But in practice it just means there are things that don't get done by anyone at all, and that can just as often be to the detriment of New Yorkers as it is to the benefit of Montanans.

[runawayjimbo]

I don't think the Dems have the spine to go nuclear on SCOTUS nominations.  I hope I'm wrong though, because the Republicans will do it in a heart beat if Trump wins and they keep the Senate.

You mean "if" Trump loses? If he wins and they keep Senate problem goes away

I'm saying if Trump wins and the Republicans keep the senate they (the Republicans) will go nuclear in a heartbeat to stop a Democratic filibuster.  Basically, the Dems don't have the balls to do what the Republicans would do without question.  But I hope I'm wrong.

Oh, gotcha. I mean, the Dems already enacted it in part for all other nominees, so I don't see why they wouldn't go full hog if the GOP forces their hand. Plus, there will be far more public outcry if the dumbasses did try to stand in the way.

Of course, it's all moot cause he ain't gonna win.

Following up on this...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

Harry Reid's Parting Shot: Dems Will Nuke The Filibuster For SCOTUS

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.

Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won't hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.

Such a move would be an extension of what Reid did in 2013 when he was still majority leader, eliminating filibusters (with a simple majority vote) on the President's nominees. There was only one exception: the Supreme Court. As it stands now, Democrats still need 60 votes to move forward with a Supreme Court nominee.

Reid said, however, that could change.

"I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we're going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, it's clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I've told 'em how and I've done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It'll have to be done again," Reid told TPM in a wide-ranging interview about his time in the Senate and his legacy.

"They mess with the Supreme Court, it'll be changed just like that in my opinion," Reid said, snapping his fingers together. "So I've set that up. I feel very comfortable with that."

Reid has previously warned that a rules change could be coming down the pike if Dems win back the Senate. In an August interview with the New York Times, Reid said that rules changes were possible in 2017 if Republicans continued to use the filibuster to widely block a Democratic agenda in the Senate. But Reid's comments have renewed resonance now that it looks increasingly likely that Clinton will win the presidency and Democrats have a growing chance of taking control back of the Senate.

Reid won't be the one in charge, however. He's retiring. The decision to make rules changes would have to be led by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who will assume the role of majority leader if Democrats won in November.

Schumer's office declined to comment on the future of rules changes in the Senate.

Questions surrounding what will happen to the Supreme Court have been central to the 2016 campaign after Republicans refused to move forward with President Barack Obama's nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. It's been more than six months since Obama announced he was nominating Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and Senate Republicans haven't even held a hearing for him. Some GOP senators refused to meet with him.

Republicans had argued that it wasn't fair Obama was trying to push forward a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of his presidency, but there are now signs that Republicans may continue to block a Democratic nominee for years to come.

In the wake of Republican nominee Donald Trump's downward spiral, many down ballot Republicans have made the case that maintaining the Senate majority is vital to blocking Democrats from confirming liberal justices.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) landed in hot water last week after he vowed on a radio program that the Senate would "be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."

The comment raised questions about whether Republicans might continue to block a SCOTUS nominee indefinitely under a Democratic president, even after President Barack Obama leaves office.

McCain, under pressure, backed off of his position slightly, but it reopened the question: What do Democrats do if Republicans continue to block any Democrat-appointed justice to the Supreme Court?

Reid's answer is clear: You change the rules.

[Hicks]

Good, if our elected "leaders" would simply do their jobs it wouldn't be necessary. 

Unfortunately they act like obstinate children and must be treated as such. 

[runawayjimbo]

Good, if our elected "leaders" would simply do their jobs it wouldn't be necessary. 

Unfortunately they act like obstinate children and must be treated as such.

Whil I agree about the obstinate children remark, I view the willingness of the majority to change the rules when they don't suit them as a pretty serious slippery slope. I know you say the Dems will control president/Congress in perpetuity, but I don't really think you believe that. Then you get into the "well you did X, so we're gonna do Y" games that will make today's obstinate children look pretty goddamned mature.

[PIE-GUY]

Good, if our elected "leaders" would simply do their jobs it wouldn't be necessary. 

Unfortunately they act like obstinate children and must be treated as such.

Whil I agree about the obstinate children remark, I view the willingness of the majority to change the rules when they don't suit them as a pretty serious slippery slope. I know you say the Dems will control president/Congress in perpetuity, but I don't really think you believe that. Then you get into the "well you did X, so we're gonna do Y" games that will make today's obstinate children look pretty goddamned mature.

I'd argue that abuse of the filibuster is the real rule change that requires a reaction. Honestly, I can't believe they wouldn't even consider Garland this year. It's disgusting. And to publicly state that you will block all nominations brought forth by Hillary all while denouncing your own candidate as unfit for the job is just pure insanity. If the Dems have to resort to the Nuclear option for Supreme Court Justices, then the blame falls squarely on the Republicans. It's that simple.

[rowjimmy]

Really excited to see if Hilz pulls Garland and submits someone more liberal.

I'd nominate Henry Rollins.

[sunrisevt]

Hillary should abandon Obama's nominee in favor of Anita Hill. Get her confirmed, Thomas bails in a huff, leaving a vacancy for... Barry O to fill his own damn self.


If only.

[PIE-GUY]

I actually would love it if Hillary nominated Obama. Would be amazing to have him on the court for the next 3 decades.