• 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

oh my--I know both sides since I watch your station also--
cussing, a sure sign you're losing today's politics--
Focus, a link please or are you just pulling this **** out your ass.
 
Outside of Rush's opinion Elena Kaegan is respected and held in the highest regard by conservatives and progressives alike,
She is, what can only be described as, a centrist.

I'll take your word for it on whatever Rush's opinion is, not a listener (though you apparently are).

Now, I'm posting this only because she had her thesis pulled from distribution so it didn't queer her chances and this contains some of the references:
Doug Ross @ Journal: Elena Kagan's Thesis in 90 Seconds: Radical. Socialist. Marxist. She Must Be Blocked From the Supreme Court At All Costs.
 
I'm going to break ranks here and say this isn't a good idea. If it wasn't a good idea when Republicans proposed it, it definitely isn't a good idea now that Democrats have put it to work.

Heh, then I will break ranks as someone who opposes liberals and say it IS a good idea. I don't believe in using technical rules to stop procedure. Unlimited debate is a good idea. Using unlimited debate to stop normal procedure is not, especially when they talk gibberish. Of course recently the filibuster isn't actually being used. No one actually stands up an talks. They just threaten to, and no one challenges them. Reid should have started by forcing them to actually talk.
 
oh my--I know both sides since I watch your station also--
cussing, a sure sign you're losing today's politics--

That is what I thought...You pull **** out of your ass and throw it up against the wall and hope something sticks.
 
That is just your opinion..........Conservatives do not like Christie....I am not even sure he will win the nomination.......I am not sure I would vote for him.

Can I ask why you wouldn't vote for him? Is it because you consider him a RINO?
 
Hatuey, the GOP has said they will do this anyway if they get control of the Senate..
I'm going to break ranks here and say this isn't a good idea.
If it wasn't a good idea when Republicans proposed it, it definitely isn't a good idea now that Democrats have put it to work.
Sen. Grassley confirmed this today saying GOPers would do this on SCOTUS Justices, something Reid said he still won't do..
How many more years does the GOP get to wage unilateral War ?
 
try "the green papers" to more fully understand the nomination process..
No TEAt-member has the brains to make it through, as Romney showed..

You used to be for him..

If he is nominated I will probably vote for him but he would not be my first, second or third choice.
 
Repubs have threatened for years to do far worse than Reid did today and Sen. Grassley confirmed that today with his statement that RepubLies would do this with SCOTUS nominees, something reid has said he wouldn't do

as usual, today's GOP is on the wrong side of History on their unprecedented use of the filibuster only matcdhed by their unprecedented lying about not using the filibuster when agreements are made in January--McCarthy-style

you only needed to type" NIMBY was here" .. i already know what you are going to say long before you say it.
partisans are nothing if not predictable.

I don't care what the GOP said they were gonna do... they are no better or worse then Democrats..... both are only interested in their power.
 
it has to be good news with so many people cheering him on...

Well, half the people may be cheering him on. I have a personal bone to pick with Hapless Harry and his re-election, thanks to the TP, sticks in my craw.

Craw - theres a word I haven't seen for a while.

We'll see how this sorts itself out.
 
and your 1600??
Just ignore him.
why don't you like the other side's facts??
thanks for going to far--go any news today on PPACA ??
 
Last edited:
So what if it's 60/40? Majority rule leads to tyranny for the simple reason that they can then vote the minority out of power. While certain administrative stuff is fine to decide via simple majority it's not appropriate for more significant decisions which would ABSOLUTELY include executive appointments.
Sounds like you need to write your own constitution then.
Majority rule leads to democracy not tyranny. If a majority party is indeed deemed tyrannical by the electorate then they will lose in the next election cycle.
It would be nice if all legislation could be voted into law by huge majorities every time, but democracy calls for only a simple majority. The three fifths filibuster rule was OK when it was reserved to special circumstances but it has become the standard not the exception in modern legislation. The filibuster has stood in the way of compromise more than it has facilitated it.
If the minority knows that it can stop a piece of legislation without any need to compromise their position they will.... and recently they have.
 
If he is nominated I will probably vote for him but he would not be my first, second or third choice.

Navy, I asked you why you wouldn't vote for him? Is it because he is a RINO?
 
and your hands are therefore clean by damning both sides--
you only needed to type" NIMBY was here" .. i already know what you are going to say long before you say it.
partisans are nothing if not predictable.
whine partisan while offering nothing--GOP-like--
Libertarian is just another word for nothing left to lose--
disowning all your votes and saying you're not at fault for the Nation's problems..

I don't care what the GOP said they were gonna do...
of course a GOP partisan hack like you doesn't care
 
Sounds like you need to write your own constitution then.
Majority rule leads to democracy not tyranny. If a majority party is indeed deemed tyrannical by the electorate then they will lose in the next election cycle.
It would be nice if all legislation could be voted into law by huge majorities every time, but democracy calls for only a simple majority. The three fifths filibuster rule was OK when it was reserved to special circumstances but it has become the standard not the exception in modern legislation. The filibuster has stood in the way of compromise more than it has facilitated it.
If the minority knows that it can stop a piece of legislation without any need to compromise their position they will.... and recently they have.

Democracy...specifically Social Democracy...is merely a step toward Communism. Read Marx.
 
Sounds like you need to write your own constitution then.
Majority rule leads to democracy not tyranny. If a majority party is indeed deemed tyrannical by the electorate then they will lose in the next election cycle.
It would be nice if all legislation could be voted into law by huge majorities every time, but democracy calls for only a simple majority. The three fifths filibuster rule was OK when it was reserved to special circumstances but it has become the standard not the exception in modern legislation. The filibuster has stood in the way of compromise more than it has facilitated it.
If the minority knows that it can stop a piece of legislation without any need to compromise their position they will.... and recently they have.

Actually, if you bothered to learn a little history, the folks who wrote and signed our Constitution actually warned about the dangers of a direct democracy where the majority rules and the minority drools.
 
who would you vote for Navy--Palin--Paul--Perry--Cruz--Rubio--Santorum--
they will split their votes in the 45 primaries--the 5 state caucuses mean little--
check out the number of Repub primaries with Open or Modified primaries--
or whether their delegates are winner-take-all or proportioned--CC in a landslide
If he is nominated I will probably vote for him but he would not be my first, second or third choice.
 
Sounds like you need to write your own constitution then.
Majority rule leads to democracy not tyranny. If a majority party is indeed deemed tyrannical by the electorate then they will lose in the next election cycle.
It would be nice if all legislation could be voted into law by huge majorities every time, but democracy calls for only a simple majority. The three fifths filibuster rule was OK when it was reserved to special circumstances but it has become the standard not the exception in modern legislation. The filibuster has stood in the way of compromise more than it has facilitated it.
If the minority knows that it can stop a piece of legislation without any need to compromise their position they will.... and recently they have.

Majority rule in congress is not in the constitution. And democracy does not mean majority rule, either. It simply means decision making according to one person one vote. We have plenty of things in this country which require more and less than a majority to pass.
 
Hatuey, the GOP has said they will do this anyway if they get control of the Senate..

Sen. Grassley confirmed this today saying GOPers would do this on SCOTUS Justices, something Reid said he still won't do..
How many more years does the GOP get to wage unilateral War ?

Yeah, them plotting to do it and them actually doing it are two entirely different things. I can't in good conscience consider this to be the right path. This approval will only further divide the country with a winner takes all mentality and definitely opens up the flood gates for more oppressive means of silencing any group and passing all laws. There is a reason the founders didn't want simple majorities in the senate. I can understand certain cases where a simple majority would be necessary but the senate is the last place we should only need a simply majority to pass legislation.

IMO: Reid has essentially made the Senate a rubber stamp for the House and the most valuable piece of the puzzle. What happens when there is a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican President? It happened in the early 2000s. It can happen again and when it does, Democrats will get a serious ass whooping and Reid will be crucified.
 
what are you going to say when you have the usual feces on your face??
That is what I thought...You pull **** out of your ass and throw it up against the wall and hope something sticks.
 
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

Stupid move, and Dems will be crying about the consequences of it soon enough.
 
all because republicans have blocked 82 Obama nominnees compared to only 86 from 43 previous Presidents--
Majority rule in congress is not in the constitution. And democracy does not mean majority rule, either. It simply means decision making according to one person one vote. We have plenty of things in this country which require more and less than a majority to pass.
 
Stupid move, and Dems will be crying about the consequences of it soon enough.

Threating to use it in the future will come back to bite Republicans as well. When they do use it they will be accused of hypocrisy for opposing it today.
 
Back
Top Bottom