Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (33) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Bassrox

    Bassrox GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Both sides should be ashamed to have even threatened to do this. The fact that it’s been done is unconscionable.

  2. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    The right wing abused the process.

  3. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    It’s about bloody time!

  4. Brandon

    Brandon said, about 1 year ago

    Yeah, just because 8 years ago Obama, Reid, Biden and other lying, hypocritical, corrupt Democrats, that you liberals worship, said that using the Senate Nuclear Option would be a horrible, undemocratic and extremely partisan, etc., etc., etc.

    But it’s all right when they do it???

    You liberals show just how dishonest you are!

  5. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, about 1 year ago

    The Senate had unlimited debate until 1917, when some senators were trying to filibuster the Treat of Versailles (which finally got voted down). Then it had cloture which required a 2/3 majority, used to slow civil rights legislation in the ‘60s. The old filibuster meant no other bill could be considered while the filibuster was in progress. It ended when 2/3 voted for cloture and then voted for the bill, or a simple majority agreed to table the measure, killing it. The old filibuster was painful enough that it was only used when the minority felt the majority was trying to pass a really bad bill.

    In ’75, the Senate passed the ’painless’ filibuster: any Senator could demand that 60 votes were needed to pass any motion.

    The President has the power to nominated people for appointive government posts (e.g., cabinet members and judges), but the Senate must confirm them. Formerly, the Senate did judicial investigations, ie., stopping the appointment of those who had been guilty of serious misconduct, or who were clearly unqualified. But then the Senate blocked Bork, who had an outstanding judicial record and absolutely no misconduct. After which, senators voted against nominees whose politics they disagreed with (so the President nominates only those who’ve kept their mouths shut about where they stand).

    Finally, the 41+ minority in the Senate agreed to block ALL of Obama’s appointments. An unacceptable situation.

    So the Senate eliminated the power of the minority to block appointments (except Supreme Court justices), even if the President and a majority of the Senate agree on a nominee who is highly partisan and has serious issues of being unqualified and engaging in misconduct. Which is also bad, but was forced by the Republican ‘block-em-all’ tactic. And which will come back to bite the Democrats someday.

    Maybe it is all a cunning plan by the current minority Republicans who expect to take the White House and a 51-vote majority in the Senate in the ’16 elections?

  6. blackash

    blackash said, about 1 year ago

    What goes around comes back around and the payback will be painful. Is there any doubt that Obamacare will be repealed with a simple majority vote in the Senate?

  7. Archimedes

    Archimedes said, about 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    Wrong, wrong wrong. Number one the republicans are not blocking all of the Presidents nominee. Number two the average number of days for a nominee approval for Obama is 240 for Bush it was 277. 71.4% of Obama’s nominations for district court were approved in his first term compared to 67.3 of Bush’s.

    But don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant.


  8. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 1 year ago

    There was a video from 2006 of Mr. McConnal threatening to do the same thing because of the Democrats ‘filibustering’ Mr. Bush’s nominees.
    I’m not the least bit surprised this as happened. The Dems, in their majorities during past administrations, instigated many of the rules in the senate that have been being used by Republicans. This is another one that will come back to haunt them.
    If this action creates an environment where judges are chosen who swing voters find to be ‘bad’, then it may have the very positive effect of getting more people involved in choosing candidates for office. I know that I plan to be more involved in Virginia’s next series of caucuses. Every cycle, I get invites to go to Richmond by both parties, but each time I’ve stayed home. By doing so, I got the candidates I deserved, and neither were the best people for the job. One was just less bad than the other.
    We need to be involved neighbors. We’re good people and we deserve candidates who will serve the people instead of themselves. But if we’re going to get those people, we need to take real action.
    Good luck.

  9. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 1 year ago

    I posit that, long term, this will be looked upon as one of the worst decisions made by the Senate. It opens the door to changing the rules to fit whatever nomination or legislation is before them at the time that said nomination or legislation is presented. This is not to say that Republicans haven’t grossly abused the filibuster rules. They have. At the same time, Harry Reid has grossly abused is authority in preventing legislation coming to the Senate floor.

    To me, the problem is not in the Senate rules, but in the Senators. The blind partisanship displayed by these gentlemen on the issues put before them is unconscionable. We had might as well have only three Senators with only a simple majority necessary to pass any bill or approve any nomination.

  10. mskemple

    mskemple said, about 1 year ago

    @Genome Project

    Well would you rather be shot dead or simply reminded that you could be.
    @Respectfultroll: You make a great point in stating that we need to be involved in our politics , beyond just the voting booth. In my former involvement with 5013’s I saw firsthand that to effect change at the state level took work and getting to know people in your area as well as candidates and issues. To make changes nationally takes the same process on a larger scale , if the people want their country back we are going to have to work for it!

  11. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 1 year ago

    So your hate trumps all.

    Maybe you should read what Sen Reid said about the process in 2005:

    In this speech he said: "The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

    True, this was when he led the minority…..

  12. corzak

    corzak said, about 1 year ago

    I heard a rumor that many Republicans are actually relieved by this. Now maybe they might be able to get some work done. And be able to plausibly confront the derangement from the far-right with “sorry, we’re in the minority, there’s nothing we can do!”

  13. Tim Culberson

    Tim Culberson said, about 1 year ago


    You mean used the constitution?

  14. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 1 year ago

    How many of you want court’s that can be controlled from the white house? Are our courts supposed to be neutral, A-political? How does a society as diverse as ours survive if the court system is beholden to one political party or the other?

    While I understand the frustrations involved when the politics is more important than the qualifications of appointees, giving the President (either party) Carte Blanche with regard to political appointees is a very bad thing.

    One day the other party will be in charge and you will then be wishing you had not taken that step……..

  15. Kevin Robinson

    Kevin Robinson said, about 1 year ago


    check you history the Dems have abused it far more but done let facts get in the way.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (18).