• 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!

Senate approves nuclear option

jonny5 said:
Because theyre implying that democrats using it are bad. If they then use it, they are also bad. Hipocrasy by definition. By the way Mitch McConnel made the same threat yesterday.
Click to expand...

Really, Reid railed against the nuclear option as "unfair" and "tyrannical" in 2005 when Democrats were in the minority. I think you actually need to look up the definition of hypocrisy.
 
pbrauer said:
Rhetorical question: are all the properties on a Monopoly board of the same value??

GOP Completes Mass Filibuster Of Three Top Obama Judges

Senate Republicans on Monday sustained a filibuster of a third consecutive nominee to the second most powerful federal court, putting Democrats in a bind between surrendering on a high priority and threatening to reform the filibuster with the "nuclear option."


A procedural vote to advance the nomination of Robert Wilkins to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals received 53 votes (short of the 60 needed) and 38 votes against. It was the GOP's third filibuster in three weeks -- they also blocked Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard to the same court, without taking issue with any of their qualifications.

[...]​
Click to expand...

Fair point... Well made...
 
Perotista said:
That is awful high, 85%. CBS News has the ACA approval at 31% and disapproval at 61%. Fox News has 46% in favor of total repeal and start anew while 42% are saying it needs a complete overhaul. Only 10% are saying keep it as is.

here is some figures on different senate races to contemplate, in places where one wouldn't expect.

Michigan Democrat Peters lead republican Land by 1 point 37-36
Colorado Democrat Udall leads Republican Buck by 3 points 45-42 two weeks ago udall's lead was 15 points
Michigan and Colorado should be two safe states that the democrats shouldn't have to worry about.
Then there is:
Montana Republican up by 17
North Carolina Democrat Hagan leads by 2 points, two weeks ago she lead by 17
Arkansas Republican Cotton leads Democrat Pryor by 1 point 37-36
West Virginia Republican Capito leads democrat Tennant by 14 50-36
New Hampshire Democrat Shaheen leads republican Brown by 4 points 48-44
South Dakota Republican Rounds leads Democrat Weiland by 14, 52-38

I know that there is a long, long time to go, but the democrats are in trouble and in some places one would have never thought. I wonder if they might have been in much more trouble without the Repubican shutdown. I think that shutdown the GOP shot themselves in the foot. But thanks to the ACA, they have recovered nicely.
Click to expand...

it is still 1 year before the elections, and primary season has not yet begun. i don't think anyone can claim absolute victory yet.
 
jmotivator said:
I am posting this again because it deserves attention in order to silence to defiantly ignorant Democrat supporters. Here is a comparison of Nomination cloture votes of the 108th Senate (Republican controlled) to the 113th Senate (Democrat Controlled). Which one shows a minority party being obstructionist?

113 Congress:

F= Failed Cloture, W= Withdrawn due to Unanimous consent (passed), I= Invoked (passed), V=Vitiated (Erroneous submission, etc.), N= No Vote, vebal consent (passed)

14-Nov PN529 Nominee Robert Leon Wilkins Reid 18-Nov 53 - 38 No. 235 F
7-Nov PN528 Nominee Cornelia T. L. Pillard Reid 12-Nov 56 - 41 No. 233 F
28-Oct PN527 Nominee Patricia Ann Millett Reid 31-Oct 55 - 38 No. 227 F
28-Oct PN408 Nominee Melvin L. Watt Reid 31-Oct 56 - 42 No. 226 F
28-Oct PN41 Nominee Jacob J. Lew Reid 30-Oct UC W
28-Oct PN412 Nominee Thomas Edgar Wheeler Reid 29-Oct no vote N
28-Oct PN509 Nominee Katherine Archuleta Reid 30-Oct 81 - 18 No. 224 I
28-Oct PN36 Nominee Alan F. Estevez Reid 30-Oct 91 - 8 No. 223 I
16-Oct PN789 Nominee Richard F. Griffin Reid 29-Oct 62 - 37 No. 221 I
29-Jul PN554 Nominee Samantha Power Reid 30-Jul UC W
29-Jul PN120 Nominee Byron Todd Jones Reid 31-Jul 60 - 40 No. 196 I
25-Jul PN266 Nominee Mark Gaston Pearce Reid 30-Jul 69 - 29 No. 193 I
25-Jul PN680 Nominee Nancy Jean Schiffer Reid 30-Jul 65 - 33 No. 191 I
25-Jul PN679 Nominee Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa Reid 30-Jul 64 - 34 No. 189 I
25-Jul PN586 Nominee James B. Comey, Jr Reid 29-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN192 Nominee Regina McCarthy Reid 18-Jul 69 - 31 No. 179 I
11-Jul PN205 Nominee Thomas Edward Perez Reid 17-Jul 60 - 40 No. 177 I
11-Jul PN239 Nominee Fred P. Hochberg Reid 17-Jul 82 - 18 No. 175 I
11-Jul PN266 Nominee Mark Gaston Pearce Reid 16-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN159 Nominee Sharon Block Reid 16-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN158 Nominee Richard F. Griffin Reid 16-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN157 Nominee Richard Cordray Reid 16-Jul 71 - 29 No. 173 I
21-May PN6 Nominee Srikanth Srinivasan Reid 23-May UC W
6-Mar PN48 Nominee John Owen Brennan Durbin 7-Mar 81 - 16 No. 31 I
4-Mar PN2 Nominee Caitlin Joan Halligan Reid 6-Mar 51 - 41 No. 30 F
13-Feb PN34 Nominee Charles Timothy Hagel Reid 26-Feb 71 - 27* No. 23 I

That if 5 Cloture Failures out of 26

Now let's look at the 108th Senate, shall we?

12-Nov PN8 Judicial nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl Frist 12-Nov 53 - 43 No. 451 F
28-Oct PN12 Judicial nominee Charles W. Pickering, Sr. McConnell 30-Oct 54 - 43 No. 419 F
21-Jul PN9 Judicial nominee David W. McKeague Frist 22-Jul 53 - 44 No. 162 F
20-Jul PN14 Judicial nominee Henry W. Saad Frist 22-Jul 52 - 46 No. 160 F
12-Nov PN839 Judicial nominee Janice R. Brown Frist 12-Nov 53 - 43 No. 452 F
4-Mar PN6 Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada Frist 6-Mar 55 - 44 No. 40 F
29-Apr PN11 Judicial nominee Priscilla R. Owen McConnell 1-May 52 - 44 No. 137 F
21-Jul PN7 Judicial nominee Richard A. Griffin Frist 22-Jul 54 - 44 No. 161 F
16-Jul PN658 Judicial nominee William G. Myers Frist 20-Jul 53 - 44 No. 158 F
4-Nov PN512 Judicial nominee William H. Pryor, Jr. Santorum 6-Nov 51 - 43 No. 441 F
4-Mar PN2 Nominee Caitlin Joan Halligan Reid 6-Mar 51 - 41 No. 30 F
7-Nov PN528 Nominee Cornelia T. L. Pillard Reid 12-Nov 56 - 41 No. 233 F
28-Oct PN408 Nominee Melvin L. Watt Reid 31-Oct 56 - 42 No. 226 F
28-Oct PN527 Nominee Patricia Ann Millett Reid 31-Oct 55 - 38 No. 227 F
14-Nov PN529 Nominee Robert Leon Wilkins Reid 18-Nov 53 - 38 No. 235 F
12-Nov PN141 Nominee Thomas C. Dorr Frist 18-Nov 57 - 39 No. 455 F
28-Oct PN36 Nominee Alan F. Estevez Reid 30-Oct 91 - 8 No. 223 I
29-Jul PN120 Nominee Byron Todd Jones Reid 31-Jul 60 - 40 No. 196 I
13-Feb PN34 Nominee Charles Timothy Hagel Reid 26-Feb 71 - 27* No. 23 I
11-Jul PN239 Nominee Fred P. Hochberg Reid 17-Jul 82 - 18 No. 175 I
6-Mar PN48 Nominee John Owen Brennan Durbin 7-Mar 81 - 16 No. 31 I
28-Oct PN509 Nominee Katherine Archuleta Reid 30-Oct 81 - 18 No. 224 I
25-Jul PN679 Nominee Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa Reid 30-Jul 64 - 34 No. 189 I
25-Jul PN266 Nominee Mark Gaston Pearce Reid 30-Jul 69 - 29 No. 193 I
25-Jul PN680 Nominee Nancy Jean Schiffer Reid 30-Jul 65 - 33 No. 191 I
11-Jul PN192 Nominee Regina McCarthy Reid 18-Jul 69 - 31 No. 179 I
11-Jul PN157 Nominee Richard Cordray Reid 16-Jul 71 - 29 No. 173 I
16-Oct PN789 Nominee Richard F. Griffin Reid 29-Oct 62 - 37 No. 221 I
11-Jul PN205 Nominee Thomas Edward Perez Reid 17-Jul 60 - 40 No. 177 I
28-Oct PN412 Nominee Thomas Edgar Wheeler Reid 29-Oct no vote N
27-Jun PN38 Judicial nominee Victor J. Wolski Frist 8-Jul UC V
23-Oct PN884 Nominee Michael O. Leavitt McConnell 27-Oct UC V
28-Oct PN41 Nominee Jacob J. Lew Reid 30-Oct UC W
25-Jul PN586 Nominee James B. Comey, Jr Reid 29-Jul UC W
29-Jul PN554 Nominee Samantha Power Reid 30-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN159 Nominee Sharon Block Reid 16-Jul UC W
21-May PN6 Nominee Srikanth Srinivasan Reid 23-May UC W


That is 16 Failed Cloture votes out of 37, or 43% of all nominees. I removed all of the repeated cloture failures for certain nominees. The Democrats blocked Estrada on 7 separate cloture votes.

So which party is obstructionist again?
Click to expand...

Some of them understand what you are getting at. But the truth holds no value to the Democrat lie. So they will keep on repeating the lies the leadership of the Democrat party keeps telling.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
it is still 1 year before the elections, and primary season has not yet begun. i don't think anyone can claim absolute victory yet.
Click to expand...

you are absolutely correct. One of the reasons I keep posting the status is the wild ride that has happened so far. On 1 Sep 2013 it looked like the GOP would pick up 6 senate seats and 5 House Seats. On 1 Nov the Republicans were down to 3 senate seats and a lost of 5-10 house seats. Today going into the different sites that forecast or put the states into columns, the GOP would only pick up 4 senate seats while a lot more look promising or in the toss up column. In the house the Democrats look like 5-8 seat pick up now. Stay tuned, I always keep abreast of this stuff. It has been a hobby of mine for a very long time. The trend line is at this moment is to the Republicans advantage. In fact in party identification/affiliation the figures went from 20% Republican right after the shutdown to 23% Republican today. For the Democrats it was 30% after the shutdown, a 10 point advantage and today the Democrats are at 28%. See what I mean about trends.
 
Perotista said:
you are absolutely correct. One of the reasons I keep posting the status is the wild ride that has happened so far. On 1 Sep 2013 it looked like the GOP would pick up 6 senate seats and 5 House Seats. On 1 Nov the Republicans were down to 3 senate seats and a lost of 5-10 house seats. Today going into the different sites that forecast or put the states into columns, the GOP would only pick up 4 senate seats while a lot more look promising or in the toss up column. In the house the Democrats look like 5-8 seat pick up now. Stay tuned, I always keep abreast of this stuff. It has been a hobby of mine for a very long time. The trend line is at this moment is to the Republicans advantage. In fact in party identification/affiliation the figures went from 20% Republican right after the shutdown to 23% Republican today. For the Democrats it was 30% after the shutdown, a 10 point advantage and today the Democrats are at 28%. See what I mean about trends.
Click to expand...

I'm REALLY curious as to which direction Virginia is going to go.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Some of them understand what you are getting at. But the truth holds no value to the Democrat lie. So they will keep on repeating the lies the leadership of the Democrat party keeps telling.
Click to expand...

i don't think you noticed but in the list of nominees in the 108th congress there republicans who nominated judicial nominees, that is why i see senators frist, Hagel, santorum, and McConnell's names after the name of the nominee.

in the 113th i notice something odd, all the nominees were put forward by Harry Reid or dick Durban. Not one republican senator chose to put foword a nominee for consideration. Why is that i wonder?
 
MichaelJR said:
I'm REALLY curious as to which direction Virginia is going to go.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I don't think McAuliff can make it a year without doing or saying something bat**** crazy. :mrgreen:
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i don't think you noticed but in the list of nominees in the 108th congress there republicans who nominated judicial nominees, that is why i see senators frist, Hagel, santorum, and McConnell's names after the name of the nominee.

in the 113th i notice something odd, all the nominees were put forward by Harry Reid or dick Durban. Not one republican senator chose to put foword a nominee for consideration. Why is that i wonder?
Click to expand...

Because they won't be considered. Reid has decided to go for what he can get before the next tide change.
 
clownboy said:
Oh yeah, I don't think McAuliff can make it a year without doing or saying something bat**** crazy. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I certainly won't be surprised. That race was SCARY close. I can't imagine Virginia staying blue-ish if the country continues down the path it's going.
 
justabubba said:
it's academic now as the genie cannot be put back in the bottle
but i prefer a more deliberative process, where more than a simple majority is required to effect major measures
when a greater consensus is required, there is more likely going to be more compromise involved to reach it. the passed measures are going to be more moderate and less extreme than when a lesser number is required to move legislation/approve nominees. so, my prediction is this move will allow government to operate faster, but also in a way which allows those that are more extreme to prevail. and if there is anything we do not need in government today is more extremists - on both sides of the aisle
Click to expand...

damn that makes lots of sense-exactly

and within the next decade, lots of libs are going to be upset when a bunch of senators like Rubio rams some flamethrower on a court
 
MichaelJR said:
I'm REALLY curious as to which direction Virginia is going to go.
Click to expand...

Mark Warner is considered totally safe or solid democrat. I haven't seen any polls on Virginia, I suppose the governors race there had priority. Possible opposition to Senator Warner is Bob Marshall and Howie Lind. Neither at this point in time look like they will mount a serious challenge to Mark.
 
TurtleDude said:
damn that makes lots of sense-exactly

and within the next decade, lots of libs are going to be upset when a bunch of senators like Rubio rams some flamethrower on a court
Click to expand...

the old system of gentleman's agreements did not prevent the abuse of the fillibuster.

whenever i hear that term "gentleman's agreement" i remember that a gentleman's agreement between the airplane manufacturer Macdonald-douglas and the FAA where the company promised to fix a flaw in it's new D.C-10 aircraft where the cargo door of the plane would fail to lock, and led to explosive decompression. after a near miss, Macdonald-douglas promised to fix the cargo doors on the d.c 10, but begged the FAA not to issue a order to ground the d.c 10 and go through a redesign of the cargo door.

that gentleman's agreement did not lead to the fixing of the flaw, and the result was the crash of turkish airlines flight 981, when all 346 people on board perished when the cargo door unlocked and blew away from the aircraft, causing explosive decompression which destroyed the planes hydraulic systems and rendered the plane uncontrollable.

if you need to get a better understanding of the accident, check the link
Turkish Airlines Flight 981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the old system of gentleman's agreements did not prevent the abuse of the fillibuster.

whenever i hear that term "gentleman's agreement" i remember that a gentleman's agreement between the airplane manufacturer Macdonald-douglas and the FAA where the company promised to fix a flaw in it's new D.C-10 aircraft where the cargo door of the plane would fail to lock, and led to explosive decompression. after a near miss, Macdonald-douglas promised to fix the cargo doors on the d.c 10, but begged the FAA not to issue a order to ground the d.c 10 and go through a redesign of the cargo door.

that gentleman's agreement did not lead to the fixing of the flaw, and the result was the crash of turkish airlines flight 981, when all 346 people on board perished when the cargo door unlocked and blew away from the aircraft, causing explosive decompression which destroyed the planes hydraulic systems and rendered the plane uncontrollable.

if you need to get a better understanding of the accident, check the link
Turkish Airlines Flight 981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

that's really interesting but is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand
 
jakiejakester said:
Gee you think it would have been a smart thing to appoint someone to be our UN Ambassador who is against the UN as a body? The genius of GW Bush is never to be overlooked....
Click to expand...

This is called moving the goal posts.

The pointing out of Bolton wasn't in reference to someone suggesting whether or not Bolton was a smart appointee. It was in reference to THIS statement:

Buck Ewer said:
Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.
Click to expand...

Regardless if you think it was a legitimate, wise, or good move to filibuster him...the FACT is that they DID filibuster a presidential appointment, and thus Buck Ewer's statement was unquestionably and undeniably false.
 
Deuce said:
Too late to call hypocrisy. Your guys were bitching about fillibusters non-stop when Democrats were blocking Bush appointments.
Click to expand...

Yep, the hypocrisy card on this one is just going to be laughable watching either side pull it.

Democrats cried a storm when Republicans threatened this back in the 00's, Republicans championed it as completely legitimate...now Democrats are championing it and Republicans are crying the storm, both sides are raging hypocrites (not that it's any surprise). Welcome to Politics as Usual.
 
jmotivator said:
So which party is obstructionist again?
Click to expand...

Both...people just like to rationalize and excuse they're parties obstructionist actions to make them feel okay criticizing the other side more.

The reality is the minority party is elected, IN PART, to be obstructionist.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yep, the hypocrisy card on this one is just going to be laughable watching either side pull it.

Democrats cried a storm when Republicans threatened this back in the 00's, Republicans championed it as completely legitimate...now Democrats are championing it and Republicans are crying the storm, both sides are raging hypocrites (not that it's any surprise). Welcome to Politics as Usual.
Click to expand...

The difference is one only threated, the other actually dropped the bomb. Speaking of hypocrites, how about a word from Senator Obama:

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-ILLINOIS): The American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. […]

What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. […]

The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that the majority chooses to end the filibuster. If they choose to change the rules and put an end to Democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

Now I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber, but we need to rise above the "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones that are wearing our particular party label. […]

If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interests, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that - we owe them much more.
 
jonny5 said:
Because theyre implying that democrats using it are bad. If they then use it, they are also bad. Hipocrasy by definition. By the way Mitch McConnel made the same threat yesterday.
Click to expand...

Blatant Hypocrisy: Watch Senate Democrats AND Obama Oppose Stripping Filibuster in 2005! | Independent Journal Review

Still confused about what hypocrisy is?

Make sure you listen to what Senator Biden has to say about it.
“The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play . . . tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” --- Senator Joe Biden.
 
Last edited:
cpgrad08 said:
And you think that when the Democrats are a minority again this won't comeback to hunt them since they will have no weapons to fight with remember Dems. filibustered President Bush's nominations.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, then why are Republicans protesting?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
it does show why i am skeptical of so called gentlemans agreements, including ones related to filibusters.
Click to expand...

All senate rules are gentlemen's agreements between the majority and minority party. The majority party is free to change any of those rules without external input that could put the minority party out of the game. They don't generally because there's an agreement that it won't be done to them when they become the minority. Reid just openned a door.
 
Visbek said:
If this is the case, then why are Republicans protesting?
Click to expand...

Because of the real motive for this - to pack the DC court while they still have the majority. That can't be changed later on.
 
cpgrad08 said:
This will come back on hunt the democrats when they are minority in the Senate.
Click to expand...

The current system has hurt already the Dems, effectively making them in the minority. It seems to me that addressing today's pain trumps some hypothetical future pain. They now, at least, stand a chance of getting something done and defending their bulkhead.
 
Anthony60 said:
As far as I'm concerned, this is a bad move by the democrats. It's a blatant attack on the what the framers of this country intended, it is a move towards totalitarian government, and keeping the opposition down. I hear Obama has since nominated 30 individuals, doubtless these people would never have past the confirmation process.

Of course, whenever the republican gain control, the chances of which have just been greatly increased, they will have free reign to do as they please. At least they'll only need 51 votes to pass anything they want, since such a drastic change in the rules is now okay.

Ironic, it was these left wing statists that called it the "Nuclear Option" because they were sooo against doing it. What a bunch of corrupt hypocrites.
Click to expand...

You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom