• 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

Perotista said:
Heck, even Daschle and Lott wouldn't have let it get this far. I tell you this, I never seen this coming.
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting to mention how far Sen. Frist took the disagreement in 2004 by being the only Majority leader to ever campaign in the state of the minority leader Sen. Daschle, giving us Sen. Thune..
Frist and McConnell were all about "can't we have an up or down vote" in 2005!!Short memory??
 
Hatuey said:
... I don't mean to nitpick, but your list only shows the ones which have been appointed. It doesn't show which ones have been filibustered. One can be filibustered and still be appointed once the filibuster ends. The weight is on him to show that ALL of them have been filibustered - you showing which ones have been appointed does nothing to contradict his claim.... or maybe I'm wrong about filibusters.
Click to expand...

Your right. Here the last District Judge confirmed Debra Brown was done so without filibuster...during the same session where two others were...

Washington Week

Would you now stipulate that this one disproves the 'ALL' profession?
 
NIMBY said:
Out of 168 nominees filibustered in our history, 82 during Obama..
Sen. Reid actually did the RepubLies a favor by not quite reaching 50%..

All the GOP hammered away in 2005 was an "up-or-down-vote"..
Let's play twister .
Click to expand...

you play twister, i'm not interested... both parties are chock full of imbeciles, and there isn't a damn thing you can say to make my like your imbecilic Democratic party... or the idiot GOP, for that matter..


don't talk to me about Harry Reid.. I know more about him that you will ever know.... he's scum... he's corrupt as ****... and because fact don't matter and party is everything to you and your ilk, you adore him.
 
Dickieboy said:
Your right. Here the last District Judge confirmed Debra Brown was done so without filibuster...during the same session where two others were...

Washington Week

Would you now stipulate that this one disproves the 'ALL' profession?
Click to expand...

Most certainly. His claim was hard to support anyways.
 
NIMBY said:
The GOP still has the right to filibuster legislation and SCOTUS nominees and you know this will,
so you're wrong on that one in trying to slam Sen. Reid.

How many straws did you need to break the camel's back??

That is absolutely incorrect, as wrong as can be..
Legislation is not included from today..I'll take it as your anti-Sen. Reid--hackery .
Click to expand...

I know once you push the tooth paste out of the tube, you ain't going to get it back it. I can guarentee this will not stop with this one instance. If you think it will this is the first and last of the Senator Harry Reid Option, you are badly mistaken. I would wage now that he has used it once, he will use it again and again.

My hackery says this, Senator Reid let the genie out of the bottle. The precedence has been set. Yes, he limited it this time, but what about next time. What about if the Republicans gain 6 seats next year, you do not think they won't use the Senator Harry Reid Option? Oh, I am sure they will. What Senator Reid did today was prove that all the power in the senate lies with the majority leader whoever in the future that may be. That majority leader whoever it maybe, perhaps McConnell, perhaps someone else. That majority leader when he gets fed up with a filibuster on any subject, bill, nominee or whatever, can always pull the Senator Harry Reid Option.

This is fair game now. From 1806 until today the minority party rights were protected. That has been sunk as sure as the Titanic sank. But I suppose all along it has just been the respect for tradition that the filibuster was retained. So much for tradition.
 
The race card--Chez--that didn't take long--remember when you guys called Clinton the first "black" President??
ChezC3 said:
What kind is that?

Reagan? I already stated he was not a favorite of mine.

Oh, hehehe, were you pulling out the race card? :lamo

Good lord...:roll:
Click to expand...
 
MichaelJR said:
If they think the house was gridlocked before hahaha, oh wait till they see what's next. This is going to be comical. Can one of the free states please just secede already so we can get this show on the road? The foreplay is getting boring.

What they don't realize, is this works BOTH ways. I suppose that means the judicial branch will be just another wing of the executive now (not that it hasn't been flush with Ideologues already).

Gotta love that system of checks and balances :roll: So, progressives, please explain to me what happens when there's another Bush in office, or worse, a Bushbama hybrid hellbent on a complete police state....
That's the one thing I've noticed about progressives...lack of any foresight. I swear they sniff glue in the capital building bathrooms. Good luck to us all, this will have long term implications we can't even comprehend. Washington is populated by functional window lickers. Knee-jerk emotional responses with little thought into it. Typical.
Click to expand...

Again, you're proving what's wrong with Congress these days. When one side doesn't get their way through normal process they cry foul and threaten to punish the other side. It's maddening! To understand how we got to this point, folks have to remember the agreement that was made in July 2013 when Sen. Reid last threatened to use the "nuclear option".

Republicans apparently agreed not to filibuster (block) future presidential nominations throughout the rest of Obama's presidency. (See summary brief here and this article which provides alittle more detail.) Apparently, they went back on their word. So, here we are back to the past when the Senate once moved legislation forward by simple majority vote.

I understand the power behind the filibuster especially in the hands of the minority party, but if all you're going to use it for is to stonewall and bring senate business to a halt then it's better to be rid of it than to retain it. Let Senators vote their conscience; if a nominee is viable, has the experience and the background to hold the position for which he/she has been nominated for then let them vote on the nominee straight-up and not be bound to party ideology.
 
Perotista said:
I know once you push the tooth paste out of the tube, you ain't going to get it back it. I can guarentee this will not stop with this one instance. If you think it will this is the first and last of the Senator Harry Reid Option, you are badly mistaken. I would wage now that he has used it once, he will use it again and again.
Click to expand...
Let's just waste the remaining three years of Obama filibustering in the Senate and just saying NO to everything in the House..
Not exactly a Reform position ..
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
but the nominees were being fillibustered not because of what they said or if they were unqualified. they were being blocked because obama chose them.
Click to expand...

Yes, which means what exactly? Now appointments will be expedited through? Good! What happens if/when Democrats lose the House/Senate? Republican nominees will be expedited through and Democrats will be fine with it? Again, I'm playing this from the perspective of a chess player. I'm looking at it 1-2 elections from now when the balance of power shifts again and Republicans hold the House AND Senate. Democrats are going to have to bite the pillow and take it. That's not something I'm willing to do because Reid is mad Obama isn't getting his way.
 
Perotista said:
To block a nomination with a simple majority a party must have control of the senate or at least 51 senators and is no longer the minority party. Now if the Republicans gain the senate in 2014, then a simple majority is just as good as a majority of 60 to invoke cloture. We're talking minority party rights which means they have 49 senators or less.

Granted this particular nuclear option was on just judicial nominees as I understand. But the precedence has been set for which ever party has control of the senate, to invoke that option to avoid or do away with the filibuster. There is nothing that says now that the cat is out of the bag that this nuclear option can't be used on other things at the sole discretion of the senate majority leader, who ever he is or from what ever party.

John Adams when discussing American ideals said we are "A nation of laws, not of men." But I fear this change disregarded the laws and rules and was made for the "Man." That this puts us on the slippery slope of changing this nation from the rule of law to the rule of "The Man."

I may be wrong, I hope so. But unless a rule change like this is bipartisan it smacks of the rule of man over the rule of law and rules.
Click to expand...

Let's not get carried away here. The Constitution grants each chamber of Congress - House and Senate - to make their own rules. As such, the rules of each chamber are not "laws". They're just rules...guidelines on how business will be conducted within each respective chamber. Nothing more.

Don't like the way the rules are, vote and change them. Granted, this particular rule change was a party-line vote, but for folks to act as if Republicans have never threatened to do this themselves is just two-faced. If both sides were really serious about doing "the will of the People", this would not be an issue. But instead, they're only out to either puff up their party OR punish the other side for not getting their way.
 
NIMBY said:
The race card--Chez--that didn't take long--remember when you guys called Clinton the first "black" President??
Click to expand...

No, it didn't which makes me laugh all the more harder at your argument. You had no reason to pull it...:lamo

remember when who guys? Toni Morrison? The Congressional Black Caucus? I'm sorry, I am neither her nor they...
 
so when you're not proud of the POTUS and get called on it CHEEZE, just cry race--pretty soon it will be "you lie"
ChezC3 said:
No, it didn't which makes me laugh all the more harder at your argument. You had no reason to pull it...:lamo

remember when who guys? Toni Morrison? The Congressional Black Caucus? I'm sorry, I am neither her nor they...
Click to expand...
 
jakiejakester said:
Gee you think it would have been a smart thing to appoint someone to be our UN Ambassador who is against the UN as a body? The genius of GW Bush is never to be overlooked....
Click to expand...

Kirkpatrick and Moynihan were antagonistic toward the body in at least some matters. Bolton was just more so, but certainly not against the concept of the UN.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, which means what exactly? Now appointments will be expedited through? Good! What happens if/when Democrats lose the House/Senate? Republican nominees will be expedited through and Democrats will be fine with it? Again, I'm playing this from the perspective of a chess player. I'm looking at it 1-2 elections from now when the balance of power shifts again and Republicans hold the House AND Senate. Democrats are going to have to bite the pillow and take it. That's not something I'm willing to do because Reid is mad Obama isn't getting his way.
Click to expand...

i don't care about that but i do care when minority rights are used just for the sake of political sabotage. no one knows what the outcome of the elections will be and right now there are more things to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom