Page 83 of 86 FirstFirst ... 33738182838485 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 860

Thread: Senate approves nuclear option

  1. #821
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Whatever, just throw the whole thing in the trash right? Isn't that what revisionist liberals like you think anyway.
    Uhhh....Conservatives were calling for that in 2005....but yeah...the Senate makes it's own rules (per the constitution) and the filibuster has existed with the view that it was used sparingly. For the past 20 years the use has ramped up so maybe extreme partisanship doesn't allow for the ability for one Senator to require a Super majority to get appointments passed.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  2. #822
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Uhhh....Conservatives were calling for that in 2005....but yeah...the Senate makes it's own rules (per the constitution) and the filibuster has existed with the view that it was used sparingly. For the past 20 years the use has ramped up so maybe extreme partisanship doesn't allow for the ability for one Senator to require a Super majority to get appointments passed.
    But they didn't do it, did they?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #823
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    But they didn't do it, did they?
    No...but now we are in the realm of hypothetical. The obstruction now is worse than ever. Obama has had almost as many appointments blocked as every previous president before him (it's like 84 O vs 86 rest). Even in the face of that Harry Reid has held off...even tried to bargain with Republicans (remember the fillibuster agreement?). He's dragged his feet on this for a long time.

    So....I think a better question is...Republicans facing much less obstructionism were calling for the filibuster. Do you think they would of used the nuclear option if they faced the same level Dems do now?
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  4. #824
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,649

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Sure...because Unanimous Consent to debate isn't possible. I'm not sure how you come to a conclusion that a Senate minority party that has actually filibustered as many appointments than almost every Senate minority in the history of the filibuster is playing along and allowing Unanimous Consent.
    They haven't "filibustered", again, learn what the term means.

    And when you say "filibustered as many appointments than almost every Senate minority in the history" what exactly do you mean? If you meant "more than almost any" then I'd point out my previous proof that the these Republicans pale in comparison to Harry Reid's minority in the 108th senate.

    The only difference in the number of cloture votes in this run of Reid as majority leader has been the sheer number of cloture votes he has called. The rate of failure is much the same rate as any other Senate. The only real surge in the rate of failed cloture votes was when Reid was the minority leader.


    There is a pretty large difference between a Presidents last year in office an right after he was re-elected. That's called cherry picking my friend.
    What difference would that be, exactly? The cloture votes only matter when the Senate Minority is the opposition party to the President. When Reid was Majority leader in the Senate during the Bush years there was no need for a cloture vote because it was assumed that the minority party wasn't going to filibuster a Bush nominee. The comparison is really only valid when the Senate minority is the opposition party to the President, so comparing 108th senate to 113th -- the year Reid claims was so bad he needed to change the rules -- is entirely appropriate.

    You just call "cherry picking" because it's easier than actually formulating a valid counter argument, or realize you really can't mount a valid counter argument.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  5. #825
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,978

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Yep, and as I recall when the repubs wanted to use this option, the demo's like Reid were all over them, only to use it themselves now like true hypocrites....What a bunch of liars liberal demo's are.
    Both sides have flipped. If the Democrats are "liars," then so are the Republicans who have changed their mind.

    While I believe partisanship is framing much of the debate, it makes more sense to recognize that both sides have changed their minds, because the situation has changed:
    • The level of abuse of the appointment filibusters have gone up significantly, leading Democrats to want to remove it.
    • Unlike 2005, Republicans are in the minority in the Senate (as they have been for many years), and have adopted highly obstructionist tactics they don't want to give up.

  6. #826
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,978

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Whatever, just throw the whole thing in the trash right? Isn't that what revisionist liberals like you think anyway.
    Nothing in the US Constitution requires a supermajority for the Senate to approve appointees, or to pass legislation.

  7. #827
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,219

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Nothing in the US Constitution requires a supermajority for the Senate to approve appointees, or to pass legislation.
    This is very true. The constitution allows them to create their own rules of debate. The filibuster is nothing more than a long standing rule that had become tradition. That said...

    It has been highly modified. It used to be that a person must be speaking. Someone must always be speaking during the filibuster. They removed that because they are fat lazy slobs, and went to the supermajority only.

  8. #828
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    They haven't "filibustered", again, learn what the term means.
    Actually 79nominees were actually filibustered under Obama more than all previous presidents using "actual filibusters".
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ng-filibuster/

    • On social media, Reid promoted a graphic showing filibusters are on the rise during the Obama administration. "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents." We found Reid mischaracterized the filibusters -- he was counting cloture votes, not individual nominees. After PolitiFact asked about the discrepancy, his office changed the graphic. By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147. Reid’s point is actually a bit stronger using these these revised numbers. We rated the statement Mostly True.
    I find it weird that Conservatives used Cloture as filibusters under Bush but now it no longer is a good gauge of obstructionism. Of course most of the fools they write for seem to only paid attention since 2008.

    What difference would that be, exactly?
    It's actually pretty common practice...right before a President leaves he tries to jam through tons of appointments. The minority party that is hoping to gain the presidency blocks the nominations. If you look at a graph of nominations every President has a spike in the last year before he leaves office/re-elected. Which is why selecting the year before the end of Bush's first term is cherry picking the year where the majority of filibusters took place....like every President before him.

    The cloture votes only matter when the Senate Minority is the opposition party to the President. When Reid was Majority leader in the Senate during the Bush years there was no need for a cloture vote because it was assumed that the minority party wasn't going to filibuster a Bush nominee. The comparison is really only valid when the Senate minority is the opposition party to the President, so comparing 108th senate to 113th -- the year Reid claims was so bad he needed to change the rules -- is entirely appropriate.
    Sure....in Bush's second term the majority party just blocked all confirmations Bush's last year. you notice they don't compare it to 2002 though right? Right after he was re-elected to office and still had pretty much a full term as President...I wonder why they used his last year of his first term...mhmmmm. Also weird they don't compare all 8 of Bush's years to all 8 of Obama's.

    You just call "cherry picking" because it's easier than actually formulating a valid counter argument, or realize you really can't mount a valid counter argument.
    I call it cherry picking because it is. It uses a time frame where filibusters are historically used a lot more than normal (last year in the term of a President) compared to Obama's first year after getting elected. If you don't understand how that's cherry picking....I dunno how to explain it better.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  9. #829
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Nothing in the US Constitution requires a supermajority for the Senate to approve appointees, or to pass legislation.
    So you are against minority rights in the Senate? Noted.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #830
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,978

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So you are against minority rights in the Senate? Noted.
    This is not about "minority rights in the Senate."

    It's about the simple fact that the Constitution does not stipulate that a supermajority is required to approve a presidential nomination.

    It's about ending the abuse of rules that obstruct the legislative, executive and judiciary branches from doing their jobs. (I.e. if filibusters were still used infrequently, there would be little reason to end the practice.)

    There is nothing about this rule change that violates either the specific words or the intent of the Constitution.

Page 83 of 86 FirstFirst ... 33738182838485 ... 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
  •