Page 75 of 86 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 860

Thread: Senate approves nuclear option

  1. #741
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The majority, you mean; I don't disagree.
    I was referring to who'd use it, not who initiated the rule change. But your point is taken.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  2. #742
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,914
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Actually, if you read Mann and Orenstein's book, you'll see how the voter impulse to "throw out da bums" is counterproductive to that goal.



    True... but that doesn't explain partisanship in the Senate, Presidency, governorships and so forth.



    And again, in this particular case that's not warranted.

    The Republicans, starting with Gingrich, have increasingly chosen not to compromise, and prefer to blow things up when they don't get their way. It's a direct result of their anti-government, anti-democratic attitudes, bomb-throwing tactics, and penchant for disenfranchisement.



    No, they certainly haven't. They have not stopped the Republicans from voting on appointments or legislature.

    What happened is in 2005, the Democrats got a bit obstructionist of Bush appointments, so the Republicans started threatening to remove the filibuster. When Obama took office, the Republican obstructionist tactics went off the scale. In addition, both sides made a deal earlier this year -- the Republicans would lift their filibusters on a bunch of appointees, and the Dems wouldn't change the Senate rules during the recess period. The Republicans reneged on the deal, so the filibuster rules got partially removed.



    A traditionalist to when? 1975? If you were truly a "traditionalist," you'd be howling over the abuse of the filibuster in the past ~10 years.

    New York was the last state in the US to adopt no-fault divorce. Should they have continued to block no-fault divorces because of "tradition"?

    On a side note, tradition for its own sake is detrimental. The reason why you have a rule is because it accomplishes a goal. When it hinders that goal, it's time to get rid of the rule, no matter how old it is.



    Yeah, that would mean 4 or 5 years. It would mean vacancies at top agencies and judicial appointments. Or, in the case of the ATF, seven.



    That is exactly what has happened to the filibuster. It has become commonplace, and has changed the entire Senate from needing a simple majority (as has been the case for decades) into requiring a supermajority to get anything done.



    So was Reid, who has been a senator since 1987. So have many senators, who have been in office since before 2005.



    The lesson ought to be: "The time for obstructionism is over."
    Governors pretty much work together regardless of party. As to the president, it depends whether he tries to reach across the aisle or not. Eisenhower had LBJ, then senate majority leader over to the White House to discuss how to achieve his agenda at least 3 times a week. JFK and LBJ both worked very closely with then Republican Minority Leader Everit Dirksen. Reagan and Tip O’Neal are famous for both their battles and working together. Heck even Bush the first had his buddy Dan Rostinkowski to work with. The current president has never tried, he didn’t need to in his first two years as he had huge majorities in both chambers. He never tried to develop a working relationship with any Republican. It is the president who must first offer the hand to work together. Heck, sometimes I do not think this president even works with his fellow Democrats in the house at times.

    The way I seen it the game between the house and senate, tabling the bills and the filibusters were in a way tit for tat. Blame only one party if you must, but I will not do that. Ah, you are correct, by dropping the Nuke on the 21st, Reid didn’t stop the Republicans from voting, that is for sure. But with a 55-45 majority any nomination is guaranteed now. Voting means nothing, the president can nominate a Hitler or Stalin, a Marx or even a Pol Pot, there is no way to stop him. No way to say, hey, these guys are a little too much, how about reconsidering and send us someone less gruesome. I am not saying the president will, but in today’s lock step world, they would as sure as day is day and night is night be confirmed.

    Sure, a traditionalist from IKE on. Play that as you may. Obstruction is over. There is an old saying, one nation’s terrorist is another nation’s freedom fighters. Tabling 50-100 bills from the house without so much as a debate or vote, most without even being assigned to a committee, that is not obstructionalism? Especially when the senate could have amended, changed, added anything Senator Reid wanted and deleted anything Senator Reid didn’t want. But he tabled them. Sounds like your obstruction only works one way.
    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. #743
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,629

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    If the GOP tried that, they'd have to change the rules again. The nuclear option doesn't apply to legislation or SCOTUS appointments.
    No, but it does apply to executive nominees except for Supreme Court Justices so that means that a Republican president can appoint a new HHS secretary who can "adjust" the regulations covering the ACA.

  4. #744
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    Listen to one Sen. Reid form Nevada....
    And numerous conservatives were all ready to end the filibuster in 2005.

    Why the flip? Because the Republicans have abused a procedural rule that was formerly used in a limited fashion.

    When circumstances change, so do the reasons for our decisions.

  5. #745
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado mountains
    Last Seen
    01-03-15 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,729

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    I doubt that this has occurred to you but have you considered that the reason for so many filibusters under Obama is that the current crop of Democrats are pushing an agenda that is more distasteful to this nation than any congress before them?
    They filibuster THEIR OWN LEGISLATION THAT THEY WROTE AND INTRODUCED THEMSELVES, when they find out that the president favors it.
    So to answer your question NO...
    I have not considered that, because by their own actions the republicons in the senate have shown that they are determined to stop any legislation that the president favors. EVEN THEIR OWN! That goes beyond partisan politics and demonstrates a childish PERSONAL vendetta against the President.
    They are stupid and stubborn to a fault.
    You apologise for their stupidity and partisan idiocy...
    Tell me why the republicons in the senate would filibuster their own bills just because the president supports those bills.
    Give me a reasonable and logical reason why they would do that.
    We have seen McConnell filibuster a bill that he himself had introduced that same day when the president made a favorable comment towards it... Tell me ... WTF is that?
    Last edited by Buck Ewer; 11-23-13 at 08:25 PM.

  6. #746
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Harry Reid finally comes through

    The Senate has voted to change its rules so that a simple majority is required to confirm judicial nominations and executive branch picks — the so-called “nuclear option.”
    The final vote was 52-48. The previous threshold was 60 votes to bring such nominations to a final up-or-down vote.
    “The threshold for cloture on nominations not including the Supreme Court, is now a majority,” Sen Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate president pro temp, declared after the vote.
    Three Democrats voted with Republicans against the change: Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Levin is a longtime senator; Manchin and Pryor come from red states.
    Shortly after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) office sent around a memo noting that the Senate has changed its procedures using a majority vote 18 times since 1977. Republicans, though, note that none of the changes rise to the level of today’s change.

    Senate approves nuclear option
    Typical progressive anti-democracy games...... When you cant plug the judicial system with your progressive socialist/communist judges - just change the rules/system so you can....

    This present administration and Senate is the most disgusting, vile and fascist group of idiot tyrants I have ever seen in my day or even read about in United States history books...... These progressives are disgusting with their attempted recalls, quorums and lawsuits....

    All these pathetic losers want is the courts to be padded with progressive communist sympathizing judges so they can file a lawsuit every time a law is passed that goes against their agenda - prop 8 is a perfect example - which ultimately allows them to circumvent democracy via ONE JUDGES RULING...

    This is called authoritarianism..... If you don't like a law that has been passed run to a judge that will deem in "unconstitutional" on nothing more than political ideology/affiliation.

  7. #747
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post

    Why the flip? Because the Republicans have abused a procedural rule that was formerly used in a limited fashion.
    Rather, because people in power seek to expand and solidify their power. Reid was right defending filibuster as a form of checks and balances, and he is wrong doing away with it now that his party is in charge.

  8. #748
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,840

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    If the GOP tried that, they'd have to change the rules again. The nuclear option doesn't apply to legislation or SCOTUS appointments.
    So what? Democrats have been changing the rules for a long time.

    When the country was first founded, both the House and the Senate had unlimited debate. When the country grew in size the House made rules to limit the time because of the size.

    In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

    Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote (67), a device known as "cloture."

    By 1975 Democrats in the majority in the Senate decided to change the rules again. They had the majority of 61 but couldn't reach the needed 67 so they changed the rules making the vote 60 to reach cloture.

    When Republicans came up with an up or down vote in 2005 to override the filibusters from the Democrats of all of Bush's nominees, the Democrats named it the Nuclear Option. Harry Reid was livid. But now he seems to like the idea.

    So I hope the Republicans if they get in power, just do away with the filibuster all together and show the Democrats what a real Nuclear Option looks like. And when they get done cleaning up all the messes of the Democrats from the feckless spending, to the sh*tload of new regulations and most of all overturning Obamacare, and downscaling the size of the federal government in general... then I would like to see them restore the pre-1975 rules where it would take 2/3 of the Senate to pass another dang bill.

  9. #749
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 12:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,003

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Once again, the filibuster is not dead in the Senate! You folks who keep repeating this line really need to stop listening to the Conservative talking heads out there. The filibuster can still be used for all other orders of normal Senate businesses except for presidential appointments and judicial nominations less for Supreme Court justices.
    Nothing I said had to do anything with the filibuster.

  10. #750
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado mountains
    Last Seen
    01-03-15 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,729

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    Of course they don't. Never. Ever. In that parallel universe where everything is like here, only the other way around.

    Listen to one Sen. Reid form Nevada (surely not THIS Sen. Reid?!), going on record in 2005, defending passionately the use of filibuster against the nominees of Pres. Bush:
    .
    Cooling legislation in the senatorial saucer is fine, but when the saucer is metaphorically turned upside down so that no legislation is held by it then that saucer no longer functions and needs to be repaired.
    The Democrats used the filibuster when appointments were unreasonable... republicons under McConnell have abused the filibuster using it for EVERY appointment and in doing so, they have themselves become unreasonable.

Page 75 of 86 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... 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
  •