Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, over 1 year ago

    I love how the Washington based media and elite pundits have totally overlooked the damage being done to simple governance by the Republicans.

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    What happens when President Palin has a Senate with 51 Republicans?

    Oh, yes. When Bush, Sr wanted to go to war, 47 Democrats voted ‘No,’ but refused to use the filibuster, so Bush, Sr had the full authority to send the US military to take back the Kuwait the US Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam he could have.

    The Senate had unlimited debate until 1917, but I did not read of Senators filibustering bills in the 19th century in my history books in school. With the Kaiser’s armies about to overrun the US, the Senate feared a German-American might filibuster an essential war measure, and introduced cloture. When Southern Democrats used the filibuster to slow civil rights, the Senate tried to abolish the filibuster, but the motion was stopped—by a filibuster.

    In ‘75, a compromise, the ’painless’ filibuster that only required 60 votes for cloture replaced the old filibuster that required 67 votes for cloture, but it was rarely used.

    Now, somehow, the Senate managed to remove the filibuster for confirmation hearings, except for confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court by just 52 votes. The filibuster is still allowed for other motions, and for Supreme Court confirmations. Why couldn’t the Republicans filibuster the rule change? And since they couldn’t, this means that President Palin and 51 Republican Senators could also remove the filibuster for any laws and Supreme Court justices they want. Not that they’d need to, if the Democrats remain as compliant as they were as a minority under both Bushes.

  3. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    I always groan when I hear there is going to be a filibuster (or a non-filibuster filibuster as they do it now), but there is an interesting sentence in the Federalist Papers: “If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." A right of a minority has been removed as pertains to nominations and has made acceptable the process to change Senate rules to fit any bill or nomination that the majority wills. This removes the moral obligation of the majority to consider the needs of the minority, and as partisan as the Senate has become the minority will be discounted. Majorities and minorities sometimes reverse their positions; the current majority may have made an ill considered decision.

  4. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    What does one expect from the Community Organizer in chief. His book of rule is Sal Alkenkey, Rules for Radicals. No room for the rule of law in a Representative Republic. Sates rights..geeze really? With the political lap dog Reid in charge. They can not get anything done with out changing the rules. And this talk about mob rule, rules, where is that in our founding papers?

  5. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    The American Senate functioned for over a century without a single filibuster. The Founding-Fathers had it right. Yeah those gentleman whom the Tea Party does not emulate. The Democrats have restored the governments ability to function. The Democrat’s failure was not to have done this earlier, during President Obama’s first term in the White House.

  6. Kaffekup

    Kaffekup said, over 1 year ago

    We all know if the republicans took the Senate (God forbid), they would abolish the filibuster completely on day one. They can tolerate no opposition to their power.

  7. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago


    And yet they didn’t when they had the chance and held the majority, so your post makes absolutely no sense.

  8. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    Sense? Hah, now tell us about conservatives science decisions on clean air and water, education,feeding the poor,women’s rights, voter suppression,torture,global warming,immigration reform. Republican (NON)sense formulates greed into the equation every time, just ask the Kochs.

  9. DLee4144

    DLee4144 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Why do the Democrats at this time feel like the appointment of Obama’s nominees is more important than the threat of the senate rules changing when there is a Republican president?
    A. The Republicans have no one who can touch Hillary for 2014.
    B. It is rare for a president to fail in a second election attempt. That means there will probably won’t be a Republican president until 2022.
    C. The country is becoming more and more blue. Texas will be blue by 2030, and sooner is more likely. With those 34 electoral votes, a Republican will have a hard time winning.
    D. Nothing that the senate does can’t be vetoed by the president.
    E. There are 4 Supreme Court justices older than 70.
    So, why aren’t the Democrats worrying about the threat of a Republican takeover? There is no reason to believe there will be more than perhaps one more Republican president to ever happen.

  10. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 1 year ago

    No, the country will progress and improve for MOST Americans, not just the 1%.

    Also, GoComics should put in some limits to how many comments a single poster can make in a row without paying for the priveledge.

  11. GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Half of all the filibusters since the birth of this country have been enlisted during the current presidency (i.e., the past 5 years). That’s why… I’m not sure it’s a good idea, but given the determination to make sure “he fails,” it may be warranted.

  12. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 1 year ago

    The Democrats don’t need to worry about being in the minority in the Senate in the future. They will not abuse the filibuster where it is used for EVERY nominee.

  13. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago


    I don’t think so.

    “As of March 2013, President Barack Obama has nominated over two hundred individuals for federal judgeships. Of these nominations, Congress confirmed just over one hundred eighty judgeships (173 during 111th & 112th Congresses 1 and 9 during the 113th Congress 2). Of the outstanding 87 Court Vacancies, 25 Nominees were pending Congressional review and 62 were awaiting Presidential nomination.3 wiki

  14. Refresh Comments.