Amateur Hour on DHS Funding

[Clean]

I guess the only thing stopping the biggest foreign invasion since the Alamo is US District Judge Andrew Hanen. It's all on him. He's the modern William B. Travis, Commander of the New Alamo. Sam Houston (McConnell and Boehner) ain't sending any reinforcements. In fact, I heard one radio pundit say that the fact that Congress didn't defund Obama's executive action, could be used as an argument against Hanen to remove his temporary injunction.

I blame McConnell more than Boehner. Apparently Pelosi could have invoked "Rule 22" and forced a vote on the Senate Bill anyway. Of course, as others have said, if the Republicans were united, invoking an obscure rule to force a vote wouldn't have mattered. But with Nervous Nellies like Peter King of NY saying; "what if an act of terrorism happens in your district with DHS shutdown", that wasn't about to happen. McConnell should have gone nuclear and broken the fillibuster. As someone said, that genie is already out of the bottle thanks to Reid.

All I can say is the Democrats are much better organized and disciplined than the Republicans. They're willing to stay in the "racing Hot Rods headed for the cliff" much longer than the Repubs are. It's like the Dems never relinquished control of Congress. Inviting Netanyahu may be the bravest thing Boehner accomplishes.

 

[Dobeyville]

I'm all for debate, but why should there be debate over something that is illegal? The Senate is a gutless bunch that everyone was hoping with the new majority would right some of the wrongs over the last six years. I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football only to have Lucy pull it away at the last moment. They had their chance to make the president veto the bill and they folded like a cheap tent. King is an idiot for even thinking that DHS was going to shut down. My beef is that if you are a non-essential employee at DHS, then why are you even employed? I'm equally ashamed of the House Repubs voting to pass the Senate version yesterday. They continue to act like they are the party out of power.

 

[Mr. Deez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Theoretically, perhaps, but highly unlikely to happen in practice.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm all for debate, but why should there be debate over something that is illegal?

The debate should be happening in the courts where things are found legal or illegal.

The Senate is a gutless bunch that everyone was hoping with the new majority would right some of the wrongs over the last six years. I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football only to have Lucy pull it away at the last moment. They had their chance to make the president veto the bill and they folded like a cheap tent.

If he vetoes, the bill, what good has been accomplished? Until the GOP learns how to manage a high-stakes budget debate, none of that matters. They would have to cave eventually.

King is an idiot for even thinking that DHS was going to shut down. My beef is that if you are a non-essential employee at DHS, then why are you even employed?

It's because "non-essential" and "essential" is government mumbo jumbo. The people who do the real work are sometimes deemed "non-essential" while mid-level bureaucrats who push paper around are often deemed "essential." The term has little real meaning.

 

[Clean]

Theoretically, perhaps, but highly unlikely to happen in practice.

How so? The Dems just used it to keep the Repubs from filibustering Obama's extreme Leftist judicial appointments. It only works in one direction?

 

[Mr. Deez]

How so? The Dems just used it to keep the Repubs from filibustering Obama's extreme Leftist judicial appointments. It only works in one direction?

We may be talking past each other in this. I don't have a problem with the GOP keeping Reid's rule in place on judicial nominations, and when a Republican gets in the White House with a GOP Senate, he should appoint hardliners to the bench. What's fair for one side is fair for the other, even though I opposed Reid making the change in the first place. My point is that I don't want the filibuster eliminated for legislation. That's a bad idea.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's because "non-essential" and "essential" is government mumbo jumbo. The people who do the real work are sometimes deemed "non-essential" while mid-level bureaucrats who push paper around are often deemed "essential." The term has little real meaning.

I know that we received notifications from our vendors that e-Verify would not be available as a service should the funding lapse. This happened during the last shut down too. How ironic that the a fight over immigration policy would result in the one avenue large companies have to verify residency status of prospective employees would vanish.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I know that we received notifications from our vendors that e-Verify would not be available as a service should the funding lapse. This happened during the last shut down too. How ironic that the a fight over immigration policy would result in the one avenue large companies have to verify residency status of prospective employees would vanish.

It is ironic, but surely you're not surprised. I'm sure that's something the GOP and the Democrats can agree on - if there is any excuse to shut down e-verify, they'll want it to happen.

 

[nashhorn]

Elimination of all non-essential govt employees and functions should be budget cut objective number one. I can absolutely guarantee the govt would not collapse, even with Obama closing down WH tours. We have surpassed absurd in this countries govt expenditures, but then I have been saying that for years and years. I have come to agree with my brother, himself a civil servant, it cannot be corrected. The infrastructure can only reach critical mass and collapse but until then we are stuck with a system that feeds on its own young.

 

[BevoBeef]

We may be talking past each other in this. I don't have a problem with the GOP keeping Reid's rule in place on judicial nominations, and when a Republican gets in the White House with a GOP Senate, he should appoint hardliners to the bench. What's fair for one side is fair for the other, even though I opposed Reid making the change in the first place. My point is that I don't want the filibuster eliminated for legislation. That's a bad idea.

I had thought initially that Reid started something that would keep on being used even for more and varied reasons. Why not "Push the constitutional issues to the wall" ? From a practical sense, getting something out of Congress to the oval office is a waste of political capital because one of the most liberal and pro-government presidents in the modern era will just veto until he is no longer a lame duck.

I am just wondering why you do not want the filibuster eliminated and we just go to the majority ruling the legislature? The Repubs will surely get blamed for not being able to govern if they get little out of the combined Congress.

 

[theiioftx]

All of this points to the reality that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. We are seeing the crumbling of our government through the willfull violation of the constitution supported by those who "win" when it happens. I believe it is a perfect storm of a truly divided people, ineffectual leadership, corruption and a President who believes and realizes he is above the law.

Just listen to talk radio on both sides. The polar opposite beliefs have created an "all in" approach to get your way. On the progressive channel, callers and hosts openly discuss the need to eliminate conservative points of view through government regulation. Yes, limits to free speech. We are headed for a disaster and I am afraid it is not too far away.