• 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

Buck Ewer said:
It's about time Harry.
There will never be a payback.
Even if, by some weird turn of events the republicons regain a senate majority...Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.
That is a republicon thing .
The party of mass obstruction is losing it's grip.
Click to expand...
I dunno, Buck. Seems like you're wrong. The Democrats' filibuster - Washington Times
 
cpwill said:
You are being facetious, right?

Tell me more about Ambassador Bolton?
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Sen.Graham has vowed everyone of the Presidential nominations?
 
Inb4 the butthurt.

Oh crap, I'm too late, it's already happened.
 
Henrin said:
If ideology is being used to pick the individuals I see nothing wrong with using ideology to block them. Unless of course you want to argue these individual aren't liberals and aren't being picked because they are liberals. :lamo
Click to expand...

Depends sorta. If they are qualified and liberal, or under another president conservative and qualified, then the appointment should not be blocked.
 
Perotista said:
So much for protect minority rights, perhaps the dems only protect minority rights when it suits them to do so. We are moving closer and closer to rule by the majority and a direct democracy. Where 50% plus 1 vote can have their way over the other 50% less 1 vote. I am disappointed, but not surprised or shocked. This is just another precedence set by a Democrat that those very same Democrats will come back hollering at the top of their lungs when in the majority, the Republicans return the favor.

Bask in the glory is all I can say, because what goes around will come around. I would say as of today the Republican's have a 50-50 shot at gaining control of the Senate in 2014. It looks like Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and Arkansas will change from Dem to Rep, then 2 of 3 of the following states, NC, AK and LA would give them control. These last three are in the toss up column today whereas the other 4 are in the lean Rep column. Interesting, I wonder how loud you will holler when the GOP uses Reid's precedence when they gain control? I fully expect you to support them in the same manner you are supporting Reid today. To do otherwise would be hypercritical and just show one is playing petty politics.

In reality, this single vote doesn't bother me that much. I am just fearful of what will follow. I can see such things happening in the future if the GOP were to win the presidency in 2016 and gained the control of the senate of repealing the ACA by simple majority vote, by repealing the highest tax bracket by simple majority vote, by repealing any democratic legislation they don't like by simple majority vote. The precedence has been set.
Click to expand...


Either the Dems believe that they will have the majority way into the future, or they are showing us how short-sighted politicians can be when time is measured using only a "when's the next election" yardstick. Both parties are guilty of this flaw in their thinking, BTW, so it must be a common malady affecting those in politics. :lol:
 
I can't wait to hear the pigs scream when the Republicans take back the senate next year and the lems get the nuclear fall out.


pbrauer said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Too late to call hypocrisy. Your guys were bitching about fillibusters non-stop when Democrats were blocking Bush appointments.
Click to expand...

Why too late? When the GOP was bitching that's all they did. The Democrats took the 'bitching' one step further which truly seems hypocritical considering their angst directed at Frist when he suggested the same action...
 
Redress said:
Depends sorta. If they are qualified and liberal, or under another president conservative and qualified, then the appointment should not be blocked.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can really answer the question of what is a qualified judicial nominee. This seems to be answered only in how someone sees the constitution in which in many ways is a fraudulent argument.
 
Originally, the Senate was suppose to be made up of individuals selected by the states. An amendment took care of that "problem" and thus all we had left is that it was the only place that both slowed the pace of government and also was the only place where compromise had to happened. So tell me, what's the difference now between the senate and house of representatives? Why not just get rid of the distinction altogether?
 
Dickieboy said:
They don't? Really? Is this just another example of revisionist history, typical liberal/progressive meme. Nevertheless, exactly why did the nuclear option get so much attention when Frist was the Senate majority leader?...here let me help you out:

http://www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/judicial_vacancies/fillibuster108th-72604.pdf

But in the end Frist didn't invoke this option. Reid's actions are truly a game changer...
Click to expand...
Weigh the appointment filibusters by Democratic senators against the number of republicon filibusters ...
Then come back here and tell me which party abuses the filibuster rule.
McConnell's senate minority has filibustered ALL of President Obama's appointments ...
ALL OF THEM.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Weigh the appointment filibusters by Democratic senators against the number of republicon filibusters ...
Then come back here and tell me which party abuses the filibuster rule.
Click to expand...

It is entirely immaterial who uses it more.
 
My thoughts on this outcome:

1. As in the past, I have reservations about it, particularly as it relates to further erosions of minority influence in the Senate.

2. Things had evolved to the put where the minority didn't just have authority under the rules of the Senate to block unqualified appointees, but had reinterpreted the rules to block appointees for reasons far beyond the narrow issue of qualifications. As a result, a de facto practice had taken hold where the minority could deny the President the ability to appoint positions. IMO, that was an application far beyond what those who developed the Senate's rules envisioned when drafting those rules. It's difficult to imagine a scenario under which every nominee for the Court of Appeals was unqualified or so objectionable that he/she had to be blocked.

At the Court of Appeals, three seats were vacant. These were existing seats, not newly proposed ones. What would happen if every Senate minority adopted the practice of using the 60-vote threshold to prevent a President's making any appointments? That would be an unsustainable outcome and highly damaging to governance.
 
clownboy said:
Levin realizes this move may very well come back to bite them in the butt in the near future.
Click to expand...

and levin would be VERY correct
the republicans might decide to make this move even more broad and extend it to supreme court nominations
 
Henrin said:
I guess balance in power isn't important. Why not just let one party rule? I see nothing wrong with it at all. :roll:

I wonder what they plan to do if they ever lose the Senate? Cry? :lamo
Click to expand...

i think the fact we can now fill 93 judicial vacancies is a trade.
 
Henrin said:
I don't think anyone can really answer the question of what is a qualified judicial nominee. This seems to be answered only in how someone sees the constitution in which in many ways is a fraudulent argument.
Click to expand...

Which is why unless there is a clear cut issue with qualifications, they should be approved. If the person has ethics issues, damn right reject them. If a person is clearly unqualified, reject them. If a person has a different ideology, that is not a reason to reject them.
 
Fisher said:
So Harry Reid proved himself a fraud when he said he would never support removing the filibuster rule. I hope these justices are worth it, because when the GOP retakes the Senate there will be hell to pay. Changing the rules to get what you want is such a pattern for the democrats that they have hastened the day they are removed from control
Click to expand...

Let's get it right. The filibuster is still in affect except for presidential nominations (less those for the Supreme Court).
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i think the fact we can now fill 93 judicial vacancies is a trade.
Click to expand...

A trade for whom? Justices as they stand only seem to support government power. I don't see it in the peoples interest to fill those seats.
 
Henrin said:
I guess balance in power isn't important. Why not just let one party rule? I see nothing wrong with it at all. :roll:

I wonder what they plan to do if they ever lose the Senate? Cry? :lamo
Click to expand...

The senate still has to approve nominations does it not? Still takes 51 votes? So that complaint fails.
 
Dickieboy said:
Why too late? When the GOP was bitching that's all they did. The Democrats took the 'bitching' one step further which truly seems hypocritical considering their angst directed at Frist when he suggested the same action...
Click to expand...

The GOP was mad about obstructionism when they were in power and then went ape**** with it to an unprecedented level when Democrats took power. That's why it's too late to bitch about hypocrisy regarding the filibuster.
 
Redress said:
The senate still has to approve nominations does it not? Still takes 51 votes? So that complaint fails.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked they don't need republicans to join them to get 51 votes.
 
Objective Voice said:
Let's get it right. The filibuster is still in affect except for presidential nominations (less those for the Supreme Court).
Click to expand...

Harry Reid changed the procedural rules of the Senate unilaterally to be able to hold the vote to change the filibusterer rule. The GOP in the Senate will make him eat this. Good bye any budget compromise in the spring; goodbye immigration reform; goodbye democratic control of the senate. Harry Reid just turned Obama into a lame duck 2 years early and empowered the Tea Party by a magnitude of 10. Political karma just loves dirty tricks.
 
pbrauer said:
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
Click to expand...

Civics lesson required, please. I was under the assumption that the Republicans were filibustering everything left and right. Are changes in Senate procedural rules immune to this?
 
Henrin said:
Last time I checked they don't need republicans to join them to get 51 votes.
Click to expand...

So maybe republicans should win more elections.
 
Henrin said:
I don't see it in the peoples interest to fill those seats.
Click to expand...

If that's the objection, then those in the Senate who believe the Court is too large should propose legislation to reduce the number of seats. If adopted, then the Court would be smaller. That's the proper role for representative government. Interpreting rules, traditionally implemented to limit the risk of confirming unqualified or truly objectionable individuals, in a fashion to impose that de facto outcome circumvents the role of representative government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom