• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harry Reid is set to go nuclear

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
72,019
Reaction score
43,846
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senator Harry Reid appears set to go nuclear — before Thanksgiving.

With Senate Republicans blocking a third Obama nomination to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide tells me Reid is now all but certain to move to change the Senate rules by simple majority — doing away with the filibuster on executive and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court – as early as this week.

...But now, Dems have already agreed not to change the rules once, and the filibustering continues, even though Republicans admitted when the last deal was reached that they were wrong to block Obama from staffing the government. And now, the GOP position is not grounded in an objection to Obama’s nominees or to the function of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; it’s grounded in the argument that Obama should not have the power to fill these vacancies on the court at all. As Jonathan Chait argues, Republicans may not have even thought through the full implications of the position they’ve adopted. But Dems have, and taking it to its logical conclusion, they believe Republicans have presented them with a simple choice: Either they change the rules, or they accept those limits on Obama’s power. And that really leaves only one option.

Harry Reid is set to go nuclear

I'm not sure either that Republicans have thought this through. Can someone explain why they're being so intransigent?

In the linked article, Chaich argues that both sides are guilt of "hypocritically flip-flopping on the procedural question" but then says that the Republicans' attempts to diminish the President's appointment influence are a "constitutional affront."

Senate Republicans: All Obama Judges Are Bad -- Daily Intelligencer

What is the benefit to Republicans of Reid's exercising the "nuclear option"? I just don't see it...or how this playing of politics benefits "We, the people."
 
The nuclear option has been kicking around for a while now. I don't like it when either party uses what is supposed to be reserved for "the big stuff" to block judicial nominations simply for petty partisan gain. The filibuster (or even the threat of it) is not intended for that purpose.

The threat alone of a filibuster can be used to scuttle all sorts of things without actually going through the procedure. I think they should go back to how it used to be, where if you wanted to filibuster something, you actually have to get up there and run your yap until you drop prostrate from exhaustion.
 
Reid is getting played. Pretty dumb to bring this out when potentially in a year, he may not be in the majority anymore.
 
Reid keeps threatening this, but I doubt it will happen. It's more sabre rattling than anything else IMO.

I just hope the GOP doesn't put up another candidate like Angle in 2016 so we can finally get rid of him in Nevada.
 
our government doesn't work anymore, and a lot of it is our fault. the most vocal elements of the electorate don't just disagree with policies; they paint the other site as a demonic caricature whose sole intent is evil. the politicians just play to the audience. they are manifestations of the collective us.

as for the nuclear option, i don't like it. i will point out, though, that the Republicans have tried to block almost everything this president has proposed in a way that is almost unprecedented. when the tables are turned, the Democrats will most likely do the same thing with revenge as a motive. i wish there was a strong public demand to redraw the districts in order to flush a lot of these hyperpartisan idiots out, but the public can't be bothered to give a ****. it's more fun to root for a team, apparently. meanwhile, the ship is taking on water, and people would rather fistfight on the deck. it's really unfortunate.
 
The nuclear option has been kicking around for a while now. I don't like it when either party uses what is supposed to be reserved for "the big stuff" to block judicial nominations simply for petty partisan gain. The filibuster (or even the threat of it) is not intended for that purpose.

The threat alone of a filibuster can be used to scuttle all sorts of things without actually going through the procedure. I think they should go back to how it used to be, where if you wanted to filibuster something, you actually have to get up there and run your yap until you drop prostrate from exhaustion.

This has always struck me as the better compromise. We need a functioning judiciary, and we need a check - but we need that check to actually cost something.
 
Judicial appointments: A lesson in packing | The Economist If the hyper-partisanship remains as it is in the Senate, this ground will be plowed again and again for years to come.

the three seats that obama nominated judges for were vacant seats, they were empty. how is appointing someone to replace a judge who retired "packing the courts"?. court packing is when you create new seats, not fill empty ones!
 
the three seats that obama nominated judges for were vacant seats, they were empty. how is appointing someone to replace a judge who retired "packing the courts"?. court packing is when you create new seats, not fill empty ones!
True, they are empty. Court packing, however, is a partisan effort to slant the court in one particular direction and not another, and has nothing to do at all with what's vacant and what isn't - something that been around as long as the republic. The big difference now is the partisanship attached to every single appointment, and especially the DC appeals court. Exactly how this came to be is a matter of endless blame and conjecture, but it looks as if this is an issue that's here to stay regardless of how this particular event is settled unless more reasonable minds hold sway.
 
True, they are empty. Court packing, however, is a partisan effort to slant the court in one particular direction and not another, and has nothing to do at all with what's vacant and what isn't - something that been around as long as the republic. The big difference now is the partisanship attached to every single appointment, and especially the DC appeals court. Exactly how this came to be is a matter of endless blame and conjecture, but it looks as if this is an issue that's here to stay regardless of how this particular event is settled unless more reasonable minds hold sway.

when people think of court packing, they remember FDR's attempted to increase the number of justices on the supreme court. what is going on now is not the same thing as what FDR did.
 
when people think of court packing, they remember FDR's attempted to increase the number of justices on the supreme court. what is going on now is not the same thing as what FDR did.
Court packing is attempting to slant the court's predisposition to rule in a particular way through appointments, whether by increasing the number of judges or by filling vacancies. It has always been employed, but it has rarely had the impact it does now with hyper partisanship counting every perceived advantage or disadvantage. The type and nature of the cases likely to be heard also has an impact, which is again why the DC court is a focus of concern by both sides. Were the resident of the WH republican, we'd still be hearing about "court packing" with the vacancies at hand. It really doesn't matter how the perceived advantage is achieved. In this case, the GOP should tread lightly. They aren't. This will not work to their advantage, to our advantage, or to the advantage of the presidency in the future. I hope they re-think it.
 
Court packing is attempting to slant the court's predisposition to rule in a particular way through appointments, whether by increasing the number of judges or by filling vacancies. It has always been employed, but it has rarely had the impact it does now with hyper partisanship counting every perceived advantage or disadvantage. The type and nature of the cases likely to be heard also has an impact, which is again why the DC court is a focus of concern by both sides. Were the resident of the WH republican, we'd still be hearing about "court packing" with the vacancies at hand. It really doesn't matter how the perceived advantage is achieved. In this case, the GOP should tread lightly. They aren't. This will not work to their advantage, to our advantage, or to the advantage of the presidency in the future. I hope they re-think it.

are you saying those vacant seats on the d.c court should remain empty?
 
Reid is getting played. Pretty dumb to bring this out when potentially in a year, he may not be in the majority anymore.
This was my first thought too. However, I can't imagine that it crossed my mind, and not professional politicians with so many years in government. It's just not plausible to me, but hell... wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. That scenario seems far too obvious to be overlooked.
 
are you saying those vacant seats on the d.c court should remain empty?
They could, but no, that's not what I'm saying. Obama should be given an up or down vote on his choices. That's an agreement that should be honored. The GOP should consider the longer term implications of continued obstruction in this matter. It's simply not worth the cost politically, and it's certainly not in the better interests of the public at large when those future considerations are weighed against a short term - I don't know what. There is no political victory to be had here that won't deliver a longer term failure both sides of the political aisle will decry, and for good reason.
 
This was my first thought too. However, I can't imagine that it crossed my mind, and not professional politicians with so many years in government. It's just not plausible to me, but hell... wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. That scenario seems far too obvious to be overlooked.

Two possible reasons. As someone has already mentioned, its saber rattling and the option is not really on the table. However, Reid has rattled that saber so many times over the last year, its become the "boy who cried wolf." Or, Reid may be considering the scorched earth approach and will do it just to get some of these nominations through if the writing on the wall is indeed a GOP take over of the Senate next year.
 
Two possible reasons. As someone has already mentioned, its saber rattling and the option is not really on the table. However, Reid has rattled that saber so many times over the last year, its become the "boy who cried wolf." Or, Reid may be considering the scorched earth approach and will do it just to get some of these nominations through if the writing on the wall is indeed a GOP take over of the Senate next year.

Maybe he knows the political climate is only going to worsen, and getting new powers for the next 12 months is worth it.
 
Senator Harry Reid appears set to go nuclear — before Thanksgiving.

With Senate Republicans blocking a third Obama nomination to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide tells me Reid is now all but certain to move to change the Senate rules by simple majority — doing away with the filibuster on executive and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court – as early as this week.

...But now, Dems have already agreed not to change the rules once, and the filibustering continues, even though Republicans admitted when the last deal was reached that they were wrong to block Obama from staffing the government. And now, the GOP position is not grounded in an objection to Obama’s nominees or to the function of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; it’s grounded in the argument that Obama should not have the power to fill these vacancies on the court at all. As Jonathan Chait argues, Republicans may not have even thought through the full implications of the position they’ve adopted. But Dems have, and taking it to its logical conclusion, they believe Republicans have presented them with a simple choice: Either they change the rules, or they accept those limits on Obama’s power. And that really leaves only one option.

Harry Reid is set to go nuclear

I'm not sure either that Republicans have thought this through. Can someone explain why they're being so intransigent?

In the linked article, Chaich argues that both sides are guilt of "hypocritically flip-flopping on the procedural question" but then says that the Republicans' attempts to diminish the President's appointment influence are a "constitutional affront."

Senate Republicans: All Obama Judges Are Bad -- Daily Intelligencer

What is the benefit to Republicans of Reid's exercising the "nuclear option"? I just don't see it...or how this playing of politics benefits "We, the people."

No one would really know, but if I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that the Republicans expect to regain control of the Senate next year and they would not object to the Democrats eliminating the fillibuster for them so they would have no political damage after 2014 when they push through simple majority legislation that Harry Reid and Democrats would have fillibustered. Democrats would then have only themselves to blame, going forward.
 
Reid keeps threatening this, but I doubt it will happen. It's more sabre rattling than anything else IMO.

I just hope the GOP doesn't put up another candidate like Angle in 2016 so we can finally get rid of him in Nevada.

Yes. Thank you fellow Nevadan. We have some intelligent moderates that could defeat Reid but they have to run THEM, not a TP wacko who hates ganbling:)
 
Maybe he knows the political climate is only going to worsen, and getting new powers for the next 12 months is worth it.

Thats pretty much what I was referring to in the "scorched earth" approach. If thats the case, Reid is pretty short sighted as this could very well cascade and turn the Senate into a simple a majority voting body. Personally, view that as a bad idea as in its current form, its a stabilizing force for the House. Who knows, time will tell.
 
Reid will not "go nuclear".
 
Reid keeps threatening this, but I doubt it will happen. It's more sabre rattling than anything else IMO.

I just hope the GOP doesn't put up another candidate like Angle in 2016 so we can finally get rid of him in Nevada.


Oh DAMN. I thought Reid had been involved in a lab accident and accidentally caused a criticallity incident with some left over Uranium-239.

That said, one of Obama' Nominees is Mel Watt. Talk about the Fox guarding the Hen House.
 
What goes around comes around. If Reid wants to set this as a standard so be it.
In the mean time, democrat policies in action continue to fail like its cool.
 
Back
Top Bottom