• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

GK86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,884
Link to Moscow Mitch's article.

To confirm more of President Barack Obama's controversial nominees, Democrats took two radical steps. First, since the nominees had proved unable to earn the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, Democrats sought to change Senate rules so that ending debate on most nominations would require only a simple majority. Second, lacking the two-thirds supermajority needed to change the rules normally, Democrats decided to short-circuit standard procedure and muscle through the new rule with a simple majority as well — the first use of the infamous "nuclear option."

Republicans opposed both moves on principle. Strong minority rights have always been the Senate's distinguishing feature. But when appeals to principle fell on deaf ears, I tried a practical argument. The political winds shift often, I reminded my Democratic friends. And I doubted they'd like their new rules when the shoe was on the other foot.

So this is the legacy of the procedural avalanche Democrats set off: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and 43 new lifetime circuit judges — the most ever at this point in a presidency. The consequences of taking Senator Reid's advice will haunt liberals for decades.

I recognize it may seem odd that a Senate majority leader opposes a proposal to increase his own power. Certainly it is curious that liberals are choosing this moment, when Americans have elected Republican majorities three consecutive times and counting, to attack the minority's powers.

But my Republican colleagues and I have not and will not vandalize this core tradition for short-term gain
. We recognize what everyone should recognize — there are no permanent victories in politics. No Republican has any trouble imagining the laundry list of socialist policies that 51 Senate Democrats would happily inflict on Middle America in a filibuster-free Senate.

I hope the saner voices among Democrats can help their compatriots see reason. Unless and until that happens, Americans must never let this radical movement gain enough power to vandalize the Senate.

If future Democrats shortsightedly decide to reduce the Senate to majority rule, we'll have lost a key safeguard of American government.

And — stop me if you've heard this one — they'd regret it a lot sooner than they think.
 
Oct 25, 2017
30,165
Tampa
I like the idea right up to the point of what would happen if Mitch or rather a future Republican is handed that simple majority and they also control everything again.
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
I'm sure they will oblige you in the name of being fair and nonpartisan while ignoring this will play right into the hands of what is unfair and incredibly partisan.
 

Orin_linwe

Member
Nov 26, 2017
706
Malmoe, Sweden.
But my Republican colleagues and I have not and will not vandalize this core tradition for short-term gain.

This sentence is pretty rich considering it's been his generalized modus operandi for at least 10 years now.

The real news here seems to be why he feels compelled to write an Op-ed about it, and why he thinks anyone who knows who he is, and how he works would ever be receptive to it.

EDIT: parenthetically, stuff like this is exactly why someone like Biden is such a catastrophically bad candidate, because he would take disingenuous "West-Wing-respectability-pantomimes" like this at face value and immediately conclude that someone like Mcconnell has come to his senses, and is willing to do across-the-aisle-work. Because he's a complete rube.
 
Last edited:

Prolepro

Ghostwire: BooShock
Banned
Nov 6, 2017
7,310
Reminder: McConnell filibustered bipartisan gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting.
 

Azuran

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,563
lol

lol

Just another day in the life of Mitch the asshole I guess. Get cancer and die already.
 

genjiZERO

Banned
Jan 27, 2019
835
Richmond
Lols the American people didn't elect a Republican Senate three times in a row. That notion is absurd. Republicans have been able to maintain that control because shitty fly-over states with no populations have disproportionate power.
 

Richiek

Member
Nov 2, 2017
12,063
I'm angrier that the NYT would allow this traitorous turtle a voice by publishing this crap.
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
From the outset, this is revisionist history because Democrats did not eliminate the filibuster for the mentioned SCOTUS nominees

At any rate, fuck the filibuster. Anti-democratic garbage, much like the Senate as a whole. I'm comfortable eliminating it regardless of who is in power. 1) it's mostly used as a shield to not hold unpopular votes which just helps extremist candidates and 2) it doesn't actually prevent the majority from doing anything if they really want to, since they can waive it at any time. The current "everything is filibustered unless told otherwise" concept was only even created to stop civil rights laws

All I read from his examples is that Reid should have done it sooner and filled more vacancies. Recall that they were refusing to even appoint judges chosen by conservatives (Garland among them)
 

plagiarize

It's not a loop. It's a spiral.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,649
Cape Cod, MA
The main reason that Mitch hasn't done it, is because he's more worried about what the Democrats could do with a simple majority than excited about what the GOP could do with one.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,507
A guy who has promised to never pass any progressive legislation should the left win in 2020, wants assurances that he can't follow through with his threat if he has a modest minority?

"Look at all the shit judges I confirmed" isn't the zing you think it is, if the judicial filibuster remained we'd have almost zero confirmations from the last two presidencies because of Republican obstruction and the Federalist Society insistence on putting forth far right candidates.

Mitch himself is the problem. The country can't afford to not shift leftward after the disaster of the last 3 years and, his unwillingness to even consider common sense bipartisan bills like election security reform means we've no other choice.
 

dragonchild

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,270
What bothers me is that this will give Dem leaders cover to trust Mitch and do what he proposes. Liberals will howl at their gullibility but will get the usual tut-tut treatment for being radicals that will turn off the moderates if we're listened to and they don't reach across the aisle. Because it's been this way for the last twenty fucking years.

I wonder why he felt compelled to pull this trigger so early though. The way the population is distributed and the cultification of the GOP, I don't see how the Dems would win back the Senate in my lifetime.
 

UberTag

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
15,475
Kitchener, ON
I'm angrier that the NYT would allow this traitorous turtle a voice by publishing this crap.
Everybody gets a platform in today's New York Times. No matter how hateful or treacherous their platform.

But, please don't cancel your subscriptions... they do good journalism sometimes!
Where would the good journalists do their work if the New York Times went away? Nobody would listen to them.
(That's a funny argument when Buzzfeed has broken more stories in the past decade than the Times has.)

You know what, Electronic Arts releases the occasional good game, too. But that still won't change my opinion that the gaming industry would be a hell of a lot better off if Electronic Arts wasn't around peddling gambling to children and crushing the life out of development studios.
 

BWoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
38,465
584032.jpg
 

iareharSon

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,966
Can we create a "Do the Opposite of What Mitch McConnell Would Do" Party? Given that he's the anti-thesis of moral, and evil incarnate, I feel a country built on the "Do the Opposite of What Mitch McConnell Would Do" Party's platform would prove to be a shining example that governments around the world would aspire to become.
 

Netherscourge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,016
He says it plain.

He wants to preserve the filibuster so that the GoP can block Democrats when they are not in the simple majority anymore.

He's a pile of horseshit.
 

Deleted member 8561

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
11,284
You can smell the confidence from Moscow Mitch about the GOP's prospects in 2020 that he's already writing about the horrors if the Democrats are somehow in a position to nuke the filibuster in order to pass their legislation.

You know what that means, four more years of Trump!

What the fuck?

I thought the GOP wanted it gone?

If the GOP wanted it gone they would have nuked it when they had the trifecta the last two years.

The filibuster is the only thing standing between the last refuge of GOP control and a waterfall of liberal policy that the GOP will spend the next five decades trying to undo.
 
Oct 26, 2017
17,448
Oh so you can vandalize the Senate whenever it's convenient for you but we can't touch it? Fuck off, you've done more damage to this country on your own than what that shitty nickname implies.
 

Inyourprime

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,235
Okay. Find a way to remove Kavanaugh and Gorsuch then, you bitch. Oh, and all those judiciary judges your party pushed through at an unprecedented rate... I want those fucks gone too.