• 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

Summerwind said:
Finally the Senate is a step closer to it's constitutional mandate which reserves super majorities for specific things, not everything.

He should've done this 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

Ah, where is this mandate in the constitution?
 
specklebang said:
What is the alternative? Wait until a Republican is elected and then push Conservative Toadies into the courts? Are all judges "toadies"? No free thinkers? No constitutional guidelines?

If you listen to extremists from either party, you will give up all hope for America. But look, we're still standing after ll this time. Things balance out in due course.

Meritocracy - we sure could use some.
Click to expand...

Nominate people who are acceptable to the entire Senate, not just 51% of it.
 
molten_dragon said:
I think it's a good idea and I hope they extend it to all senate votes in the future. If a supermajority of 60 was intended to be required to approve everything the senate did, the constitution would have been written that way.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then if a simple majority was intended to be required to approve everything the senate did, the constitution would have been written that way as well.
 
clownboy said:
Pick virtually any name from his cabinet for nominated radicals and it's absolute BS that so-called moderate dems would deny any party appointee.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. They are Democratic senators from states that Romney won.
Any crazy left wing radical that got their approval to serve on the courts would surely come back to haunt them in any re-election bid.
Naturally cabinet members are likely to be more politically partisan and many of the President's nominations were of people who could only be called conservative.
Name one court nomination that could be classed a "radical" by any sense of the word.
 
Sen. Grassley has given away the Republican hand many times, as he did today saying the GOP would extend this to SCOTUS justices..
jonny5 said:
Yes, its about time he stopped whining and finally did something.
Click to expand...
one man's accusation of whining is another man's used toilet paper..
And so long as the Democrats don't tyranize the minority by stopping legitimate debate, I have no problem with it.
Click to expand...
only the GOP could think of a word like tyranny, just sayin
HOWEVER, I think confirmation of nominees should require a supermajority, not simple majorities. If the two parties can not agree on something, it should not pass.
Click to expand...

is that supermajority in the constitution??
don't you think the two parties have proven they cannot agree on anything or are you from the GOP of No
 
A pyrrhic victory which is a sign of democrat desperation. That they would do this now speaks volumes. Contention and obstruction has been the rule and bargaining chip the minority has cherished since the inception of our country in such matters. This changes a lot, and it doesn't bode well for the political left. Again. The trust of the American people has been squandered by the political left, and it has legs. Now, events such as Benghazi may take on new significance. I certainly hope so. A little truth would go a long way to restoring faith in our government.
 
In other words, to the 40%, many of whom have TEAparty primaries forcing them to the lunatic rightist fringe..
jonny5 said:
Nominate people who are acceptable to the entire Senate, not just 51% of it.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
In other words, to the 40%, many of whom have TEAparty primaries forcing them to the lunatic rightist fringe..
Click to expand...

Correct, nominees who are representative of the entire country, not just the democrats.
 
shrubnose said:
John Bolton is an excellent example of when blocking someone is the right thing to do.

Bolton is a Neo-con loser and doesn't have a diplomatic bone in his body. He's a liar and a spinner and there is no place in the U.S. Government for him.
Click to expand...

sure would be kinda cool if there was a mechanism available where the minority voice might be able block such evil people from serving eh?

oh well, Harry Reid, and every single Democrat here, believes the minority is irrelevant and shouldn't have a say.

typical liberals, always wanting more and more power.:lol:
 
specklebang said:
Is that even possible in our bifurcated world?
Click to expand...

Yes

Debra Brown - confirmed Nov 4
Madeline Hughes - confirmed Oct 14
Todd Hughes - confirmed Sept 24
Elaine Kaplain - confirmed Sept 17

and 21 more judges who have been confirmed in just this year. Obama even touted his nominations a couple weeks ago

"In addition to the Supreme Court, we’ve been able to nominate and confirm judges of extraordinary quality all across the country on federal benches. We’re actually, when it comes to the district court, matching the pace of previous presidents. When it comes to the appellate court, we’re just a little bit behind, and we’re just going to keep on focused on it.”

http://nypost.com/2013/11/21/1704907/
 
and we Democrats thank you republicans for over-reaching one too many times--
to the 40% who have just been saying NO since Obama--
86 total nominees have been filibustered on 43 previous presidents--a mere 82 for Obama--
actions speak louder than words, and Americans will watch this anti-Obama everything for the next 11 months--
jonny5 said:
Correct, nominees who are representative of the entire country, not just the democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Buck Ewer said:
Tell that to Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. They are Democratic senators from states that Romney won.
Any crazy left wing radical that got their approval to serve on the courts would surely come back to haunt them in any re-election bid.
Naturally cabinet members are likely to be more politically partisan and many of the President's nominations were of people who could only be called conservative.
Name one court nomination that could be classed a "radical" by any sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Kagen. She currently sits on the high court and all those folks you mentioned voted to allow it.
 
Lutherf said:
Again, what you're talking about is forcing a "win" where no win could otherwise exist. Some times in life nobody wins and when that happens everyone needs to go back and reevaluate how they can address the disagreement.

Look at it this way:
You've got an intersection in town where accidents are more frequent than at other intersections. Half of the city council wants to put in a roundabout which will cost $5 Million and the other half of the council wants to put in speed cameras to raise revenues and serve as an additional deterrent to blowing the light. The roundabout people are opposed to the cameras because they believe it's a violation of privacy and the camera people are opposed to the roundabout because of the cost. Nobody is budging on their position.

The options are:
1. Force a decision by "going nuclear"
2. Never make a decision
3. Go back to the drawing board and see if there is another solution

If they use option #1 that's setting up more pissing contests in the future. If they choose option #2 then more accidents happen and people die. But if they choose option #3 maybe they can come up with another idea such as extending the yellow light or increasing police presence at that intersection.
Click to expand...
Your scenario calls for half and half.. not 59% 39%... and that is considered a tie in the senate today.
If the founders believed that simple majority rule wasn't good enough for making decisions they would have provided a more complex solution to a senatorial tie than the Vice President's tie breaking vote.
The filibuster is an accidental loophole of the senate rules that has been taken advantage of by both sides since 1806. It was never intentional and has no foundation in the constitution.
If third solutions can be found in compromise or tangential thinking, then either side can still make them without the need for a three fifths stalemate.
 
specklebang said:
Is that even possible in our bifurcated world?
Click to expand...
nope... in our political world, party is everything... qualifications are a far 2nd.

you can be the best person ever, but if you aren't of the right party, you don't stand a chance.

the good news is... Harry Reid just stepped up the partisanship another notch.....even thought the American people want less partisanship,Harry wants more.
 
NIMBY said:
and we Democrats thank you republicans for over-reaching one too many times--
to the 40% who have just been saying NO since Obama--
86 total nominees have been filibustered on 43 previous presidents--a mere 82 for Obama--
actions speak louder than words, and Americans will watch this anti-Obama everything for the next 11 months--
Click to expand...

Actually, americans could care less. That's how we got Obama in the first place.
 
Thrilla said:
nope... in our political world, party is everything... qualifications are a far 2nd.

you can be the best person ever, but if you aren't of the right party, you don't stand a chance.

the good news is... Harry Reid just stepped up the partisanship another notch.....even thought the American people want less partisanship,Harry wants more.
Click to expand...

Except, again, the Senate has confirmed 48 nominees just this year.
 
82 NOs for Obama nominees--86 NOs for all previous 43 Presidents--end of story--
clownboy said:
Kagen. She currently sits on the high court and all those folks you mentioned voted to allow it.
Click to expand...
 
Thrilla said:
nope... in our political world, party is everything... qualifications are a far 2nd.

you can be the best person ever, but if you aren't of the right party, you don't stand a chance.

the good news is... Harry Reid just stepped up the partisanship another notch.....even thought the American people want less partisanship,Harry wants more.
Click to expand...

The good news?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Explain what you believe are her "radical" decisions.
Click to expand...

You asked for radicals, I named them, she is on the list. Funny how you can't dispute the list I gave you. Google her career and there is all the evidence you need.
 
got deflect--how many nominees have been confirmed going back to Washington??
jonny5 said:
Except, again, the Senate has confirmed 48 nominees just this year.
Click to expand...
How many have been turned down--86 since Washington to GWB!!
How many since BHO started--82--case closed..
 
clownboy said:
You asked for radicals, I named them, she is on the list. Funny how you can't dispute the list I gave you. Google her career and there is all the evidence you need.
Click to expand...

How can i know if she is a radical by looking at her career?

why do you consider her a radical, what is it about her career that marks her as a radical according to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom