After Obama wins, can the Republicans continue being obstructionists?

[Sinaptics]

I’m in support for ending most of the tax cuts. I think the very lowest end should stay. Perhaps up to 2 or 3 times the poverty line adjusted for dependents. I think that the middle class could bear the increased burden, but I would want to continue to help the very poor and struggling families in the current economy.

[Acsenray]

@BobLibDem

Let’s go back in history. It’s early 2009, the Republicans lost massively, giving up the White House and are the minority in the House and Senate. Did they say “Gee, we’ve got to change”? Nope, they doubled down on the crazy and decided that their best bet was to say no to everything, the health of the nation be damned.

Yeah, what happened to Obama’s mandate with larger majorities in Congress than Bush ever had?

The real answer is that there is no such thing as a “mandate” in the American system. It’s just a propaganda word.

[Buck_Godot]

NM.

[Buck_Godot]

@JRDelirious

That is one of the huge issues. But in any case for a generation now the standard reaction is that when Democrats lose, it’s because they were too Liberal, when Republicans lose it’s because they were not Conservative enough.

I think this is true. The Republicans aren’t going to come to their senses until they nominate a Radical conservative and he gets slammed down hard in a national election.

[42fish]

@Rand_Rover

I see no reason to believe Obama won’t continue to advance extremely stupid and damaging policies if he wins a second term, so I see no reason to believe that the Republicans won’t continue to thwart his efforts to fuck things up.

I suspect that most people asking “Will the Republicans stop being obstructionist if Obama wins a second term” do not mean “Will the Republicans roll over and play dead even if they think Obama’s policies are bad for the country and/or they have a genuine ideological difference over them.” Most people asking the question mean things like “Will the Republicans stop opposing policies that originated with Republicans just because it’s Obama who is now proposing them” and “Will the Republicans decide that preserving the nation’s credit rating is more important than gratuitously giving the finger to the president?”

[That_Don_Guy]

@Trinopus

If Obama wins, it wouldn’t matter as much, since they wouldn’t have enough to overturn his veto.

If Romney won, they’d do it in a heartbeat. The first time the Democrats tried to filibuster a Romney Supreme Court nominee, bang, the rules would change and the filibuster would be gone.

I think you read the OP wrong - it asked if the Democrats would get rid of the filibuster if they controlled the senate. I think the answer is “no”; this has been brought up before, but both sides know that once you get rid of the ability to filibuster, it works both ways.

Question: can Supreme Court nominee votes be filibustered? If so, then why didn’t the Democrats use it to stop, for example, Clarence Thomas?

[Acsenray]

@That_Don_Guy

If so, then why didn’t the Democrats use it to stop, for example, Clarence Thomas?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@That_Don_Guy

Question: can Supreme Court nominee votes be filibustered?

Yes, and it happened. Unless you’re a strict nitpicker.

[Trinopus]

@That_Don_Guy

I think you read the OP wrong - it asked if the Democrats would get rid of the filibuster if they controlled the senate. I think the answer is “no”; this has been brought up before, but both sides know that once you get rid of the ability to filibuster, it works both ways.

Past performance is no guarantee of future success… I certainly don’t have a crystal ball, especially one that reads into subjunctive futures…but given the behavior of the Republicans lately, I can all too easily envision them removing the filibuster if the Democrats started using it to significant effect.

Question: can Supreme Court nominee votes be filibustered? If so, then why didn’t the Democrats use it to stop, for example, Clarence Thomas?
[/QUOTE]

This said, I was way wrong; I had thought that filibusters had been used against both Clinton’s and Bush’s (the Elder) Supreme Court nominees. My oops.