Page 72 of 86 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 860

Thread: Senate approves nuclear option

  1. #711
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    No, he cannot. You've been listening to too much talk radio my friend.
    Follow the thread. I was specifically referring to MMC's plan to replace judges more frequently.

    In addition, only one Supreme Court justice has ever been filibustered, and then only for four days.

  2. #712
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Hardly, given that 1/4 of the US population is represented by 62 US Senators (mostly Red States, BTW) and 3/4 of the US population is represented by 38 Senators....

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...advantage.html

    Given the small state super-majority, the Senate is hardly a House of Representatives.
    The framers designed the house, the peoples house to represent the people, hence each district is to have so many people in it. The framers wanted the senate to represent the states, not the people in the states. This is why originally the framers had the state legislatures or governor or however each state chose to either appoint or elect the two senators from their state. The state was never intended to represent people. So what you state has no bases in the original design of the senate. Of course when the 17th amendment was passed that was the beginning death blow of the senate representing the states. Prior to the 17th, each state could tell their senators how to vote or what stance to take on the issues. The senators represented their states. Today, IMO each senator represents their political party much more than even the people in their state. Senators more times than not will side with the wishes of their party instead of the wishes of supposed the people and the state they were sent to Washington to represent.

    The president was to be elected by the votes of the states, hence again originally each state was given a choice of how to determine their electors. The framers had no intention of having the popular vote elect the president. The framers didn't care if a state choose its electors by popular vote, by their legislatures, in a smoke filled room, that was entirely up to each state. The bottom line in the Representative Republic the framers left us, not a direct democracy, was only the house was to be chosen by the people. Hence the term peoples house.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  3. #713
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    the constitution simply states the senate can make its own rules, specifying a simple majority is not in it.
    The filibuster is not in the Constitution, whereas "simple majority" is.


    The filibuster has been around since 1806...
    ...and it has rarely been used. Until 1975, the rules made it difficult to filibuster. As the rules eased, filibusters have become downright routine. Its removal was also 100% above board, since the Senate voted to change its own rules.


    speaking of doing away with the electoral college, I think it would take a constitutional amendment to do that.
    Yes, it would. Which is why, unfortunately, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.


    Perhaps it is time to just let each political party do exactly what they want to do, it is that way anyway.
    No, I'd say it is time for both parties to ease back on the partisanship, and especially for the Republicans to stop it with the self-destructive obstructionism.

  4. #714
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,239

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    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?
    Like I said to pbrauer:

    Would you have said that when the democrats were holding up republican nominees?

  5. #715
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Yes, exactly what the framers did not want. But we have our new framers, Obama, Reid, and the rest of them. Obama declared a short while ago that he is "remaking the courts". Isn't that great?
    He was referring to speeding up the pace of nominations.

    And yes, making appointments is his job.


    Since when is it the president's job to remake the courts?
    Since day 1. Jefferson, for example, inherited courts packed with Federalists -- whom he tried to yank out by impeaching the whole lot of them. (He was stopped fairly quickly.)


    And from what to what? A body that is supposed to obey the Constitution to one that ignores it and grants broad power to the executive branch?
    Into a system with climbing vacancies, to one with actual judges doing their job.


    These are scary times for this country, and I can't remember anytime before when a president tried to circumvent the Constitution and grab power as much as this guy.
    Uh, how about pretty much every President in the past 50 years? Bush 43 was particularly egregious, with the warrantless wiretaps, ripping up due process with a mere accusation of "terrorism," expanding the NSA. Reagan, lauded by conservatives, directly violated the law by selling arms to the Contras. Nixon shredded the Constitution by subverting the entire electoral process. Roosevelt infamously tried to pack the Supreme Court, and pushed the limits of executive powers.

    I might add that a bit of back-and-forth between branches is perfectly normal. There is absolutely no way to have a perfect balance of all the branches, all the time.

  6. #716
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    The filibuster is not in the Constitution, whereas "simple majority" is.



    ...and it has rarely been used. Until 1975, the rules made it difficult to filibuster. As the rules eased, filibusters have become downright routine. Its removal was also 100% above board, since the Senate voted to change its own rules.



    Yes, it would. Which is why, unfortunately, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.



    No, I'd say it is time for both parties to ease back on the partisanship, and especially for the Republicans to stop it with the self-destructive obstructionism.
    That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened. You have two hard heads as leaders of the senate, both Reid and McConnell IMO put their party 50,000 miles above the country. Something like this would have never happened under the leadership of Robert Byrd or Howard Baker, under George Mitchell or Robert Dole, not even under Tom Daschle or Trent Lott.

    I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House. The senate does have the power to amend, add, delete and change every one of those bills to make them very friendly. It was a two way street. If we had different leaders in the senate, perhaps an Alexander and a Leahey, there would have been no need for Reids Rule.

    But it is what it is and the political parties can have their own way. The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it. I'll go back to my business of forecasting elections and let the two parties tear each other apart. Why not, there are no more rules.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #717
    Educator BlackAsCoal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    11-04-15 @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    702

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened. You have two hard heads as leaders of the senate, both Reid and McConnell IMO put their party 50,000 miles above the country. Something like this would have never happened under the leadership of Robert Byrd or Howard Baker, under George Mitchell or Robert Dole, not even under Tom Daschle or Trent Lott.

    I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House. The senate does have the power to amend, add, delete and change every one of those bills to make them very friendly. It was a two way street. If we had different leaders in the senate, perhaps an Alexander and a Leahey, there would have been no need for Reids Rule.

    But it is what it is and the political parties can have their own way. The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it. I'll go back to my business of forecasting elections and let the two parties tear each other apart. Why not, there are no more rules.
    APPLAUSE

  8. #718
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Can what both ways?

    And why should anyone give a crap about a "tradition," with no Constitutional basis, that is holding up the entire government?
    Holding up the government is often the wisest action. A few republicans started a filibuster of corrupt associate justice Abe Fortas when LBJ wanted that crook as CJ. the delay allowed more information to be gathered-information so damning that Fortas NOT ONLY WITHDREW as the nominee for the CJ, he resigned from his associate seat on the bench.

    so sometimes delay is a good thing



  9. #719
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened.
    Of course it can. Since you missed it, the US got so divided that we had a civil war -- and we came back from it. The divide between North and South was also very extreme in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement came to a head. There is no reason why politicians can't walk back from the precipice, especially if the public really bothers to push for it.


    I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House.
    Yeah, I'm gonna side with Mann and Ornstein on this one. The Democrats are far from innocent, but the majority of the blame for the current stalemate and hostility happens to lie with the Republicans, and is based in their bomb-throwing anti-government agenda.


    The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it.
    Using a loophole to eliminate a loophole is a wonderful irony.

    And again, the Republicans almost "went nuclear" in 2005, when they were frustrated over the holdups of Bush nominees. The only reason they're going ballistic over this is not because they are concerned for the minority (which, given their attempts to disenfranchise minorities across the US, is a cruel irony), but because it's an action taken by the Democrats -- which means they have obligated themselves to oppose it.

  10. #720
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Of course it can. Since you missed it, the US got so divided that we had a civil war -- and we came back from it. The divide between North and South was also very extreme in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement came to a head. There is no reason why politicians can't walk back from the precipice, especially if the public really bothers to push for it.



    Yeah, I'm gonna side with Mann and Ornstein on this one. The Democrats are far from innocent, but the majority of the blame for the current stalemate and hostility happens to lie with the Republicans, and is based in their bomb-throwing anti-government agenda.



    Using a loophole to eliminate a loophole is a wonderful irony.

    And again, the Republicans almost "went nuclear" in 2005, when they were frustrated over the holdups of Bush nominees. The only reason they're going ballistic over this is not because they are concerned for the minority (which, given their attempts to disenfranchise minorities across the US, is a cruel irony), but because it's an action taken by the Democrats -- which means they have obligated themselves to oppose it.
    The only way of an easing up of the political poisonous atmospher in D.C. is if we were, as voters to send most packing. But we in the electorate are not going to do that. Then you have the problem in the house where gerrymandering creats safe districts which in itself causes those who sit in them to become very hard left and right. Well most of the electorate is somewhere in the middle, most of those in congress are on the fringes. So I do not see changes coming anytime soon.

    Siding with one side or the other is your perogitive. I prefer to blame both parties.

    Speaking of irony, how about the party most known for protecting minority rights just nuked the minorty party of its rights. FYI I was opposed to it in 2005 also. Like I said I am a traditionalist. I would rather suffer though non-appointments for a year or two than see protection of the minority eliminated. Once used, it will become common place, hence I am of the oppinion to just do away with it now.

    I still think they, the Democrats should have listen to Levin. He was in the minority once before, not like 33 Democratic who voted for the Nuke option who never served in the minority. There is something to be said for the widom and experience of someone who has been there and done that. But it is what it is.

    I wonder if there are any lessons to be learned for the 21st of November action and if there are, what are they?
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Page 72 of 86 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •