• 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

There should be no reason to require 60+ votes for a Presidential nomination. NONE. Finally Harry Reid had the balls to tell the Republicans to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

I guess you were saying the same thing when Dems blocked Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler from the DC court-two men who were far far better qualified than say Kagan?
 
Many of these courts have needed to bring retired judges out of retirement..Check out the Sen. Grassley bill to decrease the DC court of appeals from 11 to 8--referred to some as a reverse FDR-court-packing bill..This change today does not apply to SCOTUS justices and legislation..Now, if the opposition party wants some more, we can give them the rest..So be it..

Thanks, Linc. Couldn't figure out why the House said what they did about DOA. Makes sense now, since legislation is supposedly not included!
 
So future President Christie should not have his own people ??

His OWN PEOPLE ??

WE just took on over 5 and a half TRILLION dollars in Fannie and Freddie's debt because Politicians LIKE MEL WATT did everything in their power, including lying through their teeth, to protect the GSE's before the wen't bankrupt.

The House Financial Services Committee began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks. In supporting the bills, Republicans focused on GSE’s potential impact on the broader financial system. Democrats focused solely on the mortgage lending targets, stating there was no risk to the broader financial system because the federal government would bail out the GSEs if necessary.


Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): “nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke… In fact, the GSEs (Fannie, Freddie) have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission – a mission that has seen innovation flourish, from desktop underwriting (no formal analysis) to 100% loans (no collateral).”



Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez: “Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?”


"Mel has over four decades of experience on issues related to housing and housing finance," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who added she was "extremely disappointed" by the Senate vote.


Yea, let the guy who helped ruin Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go back in and Run them. It's stupidity beyond the pale as that POS should be kept as far away as possible from those two GSEs.

According to Obama... "Mel understands as well as anybody what caused the housing crisis,"

Problem is, Democrats LIE, and I have yet to find one on any message board who truly UNDERTANDS what caused the housing crisis. You might as well put ACORN in charge and kiss what principle the two GSE's currently have goodbye.

Obama Puts Watt In Charge Of Mortgage Agencies He Helped Ruin - Investors.com
 
I guess you were saying the same thing when Dems blocked Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler from the DC court-two men who were far far better qualified than say Kagan?

I'm curious about your comparison. What exactly made Miguel Estrada more qualified than Kagan? Was it a particular case? Or maybe some work experience Kagan didn't have?
 
I'm curious about your comparison. What exactly made Miguel Estrada more qualified than Kagan? Was it a particular case? Or maybe some work experience Kagan didn't have?

Kagan has no real experience. She got a little as the SG

Estrada had been in the SG's office actually handling cases and arguing them before appellate courts.

Keisler-it isn't even close. He had been WH counsel, acting AG, DAAG-civil and Sidley and Austin's Supreme Court practice head with several arguments before the USSC and tons before other courts.
 
This was a power grab by the Democrats to overload one court, the DC Circuit, which is the court that is the ONLY court (other than the SCOTUS) to hear cases regarding Congress. Think about that.

That court is currently balanced; 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

This action will make it 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

By adding into this, the Presidential nominations to Administration Executive positions, they have killed the "consent" capability of the minority in the Senate. That part was only for political cover to make it seem more reasonable to those uneducated as to how our government has worked since the 1870.

This will come back to bite the Democrats in the butt as soon as the Republicans win the Senate again.

I'm more afraid of Ted Cruz having unfettered reign than I am the Democrats when it comes to Presidential appointees.

This was a major mistake. And all over loading the DC Circuit in favor of the Democrats.

Shame on them all...

I agree on the shame on them all. I too am more afraid of what a McConnell and a Cruz would do if they became Senate Majority Leaders with what will from now on be known as the Senator Harry Reid Option. What a gift to someone like Cruz. I do not think Senator Reid really thought this through. Cruz or even McConnell will not hesitate to use the nuclear option to get what they want. Wow! What a can of worms to open.
 
Kagan has no real experience. She got a little as the SG

Estrada had been in the SG's office actually handling cases and arguing them before appellate courts.

Keisler-it isn't even close. He had been WH counsel, acting AG, DAAG-civil and Sidley and Austin's Supreme Court practice head with several arguments before the USSC and tons before other courts.

Thanks. Now I understand better. So holding positions like AG, DAAG-civil and White House Counsel mean one is better qualified for SCOTUS? What about justices who don't haven't held said some of those positions and still are considered "qualified" like say Roberts? What kind of experience would they require?
 
Thanks, Linc. Couldn't figure out why the House said what they did about DOA. Makes sense now, since legislation is supposedly not included!

This is what happens when one bomb is dropped by one side in the senate, another bomb is dropped by the house on the other side and the war escalates from there. If the atmosphere in Washington isn't toxic enough already. Reid has to add more poison to it. Soon both sides will be launching nukes at each other over this. Up until today, at least both side kept the war in D.C. conventional. I think that has change with missiles launch, how much destruction will occur once these nuke missiles land, who knows.

All I know is one side is always blaming the other. You started by filibustering, no you started by tabling all the bills from the house, then okay, I launch my first missile by doing away with the filibuster, then the house launches their with the DOA, here we go WWIII. I think the divisions in Washington just grew from oceans to a universe. This is not good.
 
Thanks. Now I understand better. So holding positions like AG, DAAG-civil and White House Counsel mean one is better qualified for SCOTUS? What about justices who don't haven't held said some of those positions and still are considered "qualified" like say Roberts? What kind of experience would they require?

when the opening came up I went and talked to the guy who was our appellate chief. a liberal Jewish guy who was 8th in his class at Harvard law-and who took off election day in 2008 and 2012 to work for Obama. So I said-who is the best available guy for Bush to pick. And he said without thinking-John Roberts. and I said WHO. and my appellate chief said-the smartest guy on the DC Circuit who was a legend as federal appellate attorney before he was put on the DC circuit. My AC said "this guy is widely considered the best guy in oral arguments before the supremes". he is the guy you hire if you have a case going for argument.

that's pretty strong
 
A little something I noticed:

1) House changes it's rules on a bill so that a Senate bill that was passed could only come to the floor through the Speaker of the House. That move ensured the shutdown of the government. Had the bill been allowed to come to a vote, it would have passed, and no government shutdown would have happened.

End result - Democrats scream bloody murder. Republicans strongly support the move.

2) Senate changes it's rules so that cloture on a filibuster of a nominee can be invoked with only 51 votes.

End result - Republicans scream bloody murder. Democrats strongly support the move.

What does this tell me? That Republicans and Democrats are both hypocrites. It's evil unless THEY are the ones doing it. LOL.
 
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.

I myself am opposed to filibuster at all. That's nowhere near becoming a direct democracy. I think these parties have political ideologies that they should put into practice. If their ideas don't work, they get voted out. Instead we have ideologies of the majority party bastardized as much as possible so that nothing really works well.

Ideally however, I say remove the filibuster from the senate, and turn the house into a parliament. Then as a a parliament you have several parties involved and the largest party, more often than not, will have to work with and strike deals with minority parties to move anything forward.
 
GOP hyperpartisans do, which you are not or whatever..
HUH? That was an unnaturally huge leap. don't know how you came up with that...
After being out for a few, my thoughts go to the GOP conference of GOVs, headed by Christie..
I am reminded of Gov. Walker yesterday supporting Christie as a Conservative..
I see the GOP Govs taking notes on this filibuster event, discussing how to avoid it with a DEM Senate in 2017 .
 
When Sen. McConnell quipped to have an up or down vote in 2005, DEMs fixed the problem in 2013..
Dems did not filibuster Alito or Thomas to death, though Kerry tried on Alito but no filibuster vote given..
Alito approved 58-42..Thomas approved 52-48, an insult as the lowest ever..
Sen. Grassley threatened a Scalia on Dems, who was confirmed 98-0..My how times have changed..
Imagine if Obama gets another SCOTUS Justice..All Hell will break loose .
I myself am opposed to filibuster at all. That's nowhere near becoming a direct democracy. I think these parties have political ideologies that they should put into practice. If their ideas don't work, they get voted out. Instead we have ideologies of the majority party bastardized as much as possible so that nothing really works well.

Ideally however, I say remove the filibuster from the senate, and turn the house into a parliament. Then as a a parliament you have several parties involved and the largest party, more often than not, will have to work with and strike deals with minority parties to move anything forward.
 
Last edited:
This move is well overdue, and doesn't go far enough.

The essence of the legislature is not to throw so much sand in the gears that a minority -- of any party -- can halt an administration in its tracks. It's unacceptable, no matter who's doing it.

Good riddance to bad Senate rules.
 
I myself am opposed to filibuster at all. That's nowhere near becoming a direct democracy. I think these parties have political ideologies that they should put into practice. If their ideas don't work, they get voted out. Instead we have ideologies of the majority party bastardized as much as possible so that nothing really works well.

Ideally however, I say remove the filibuster from the senate, and turn the house into a parliament. Then as a a parliament you have several parties involved and the largest party, more often than not, will have to work with and strike deals with minority parties to move anything forward.

You know that isn't a bad idea. Parliament I mean. I have always been on the side of the filibuster. The senate was designed to slow things down and not jump into something on the spur of the moment. Besides protecting minority rights, what the filibuster does is stop wild swings in government from the left and the right. We could for instances have one party without the filibuster who controls the presidency and both chambers of congress push through all shall we say extreme left wing ideas. Then in the next election if the other party won both chambers and the presidency, that party could repeal everything the first party accomplished and then push through their extreme right wing ideas and so on and so on. If used right, the filibuster gives the minority party some wiggle room even if the other party controls congress and the presidency. It should bring about some compromise between the two parties to get things passed. But today atmosphere in Washington is so toxic, that isn't going to happen. I blame both Reid and McConnell for that. Each is highly partisian and puts the good of their parties way above the nation and certainly governing. Each wants to win 100% of the time, each does not want to cede one iota to the other party. There is none of this I will give you A and B if you give me C and D.

I don't know where all of this will lead, but I sure do not like looking into the future if all one majority party has to do is just change the rules to get its way. This makes your parliament idea seem like a good one.
 
And you are correct to say a Majority Leader Cruz in the future will launch his own nuke, as you would say, on legislation or a SCOTUS Justice..
It doesn't matter to me now, since the Senate was frozen in an "Aaron Burr" filibuster on everything..
If Repubs want to change rules back to the 67 votes to raise taxes or whatever, so be it..
I don't see a President Christie allowing it..Frankly, I wish we could fast-forward three years from now .
I agree on the shame on them all. I too am more afraid of what a McConnell and a Cruz would do if they became Senate Majority Leaders with what will from now on be known as the Senator Harry Reid Option. What a gift to someone like Cruz. I do not think Senator Reid really thought this through. Cruz or even McConnell will not hesitate to use the nuclear option to get what they want. Wow! What a can of worms to open.
 
This move is well overdue, and doesn't go far enough.

The essence of the legislature is not to throw so much sand in the gears that a minority -- of any party -- can halt an administration in its tracks. It's unacceptable, no matter who's doing it.

Good riddance to bad Senate rules.

it's academic now as the genie cannot be put back in the bottle
but i prefer a more deliberative process, where more than a simple majority is required to effect major measures
when a greater consensus is required, there is more likely going to be more compromise involved to reach it. the passed measures are going to be more moderate and less extreme than when a lesser number is required to move legislation/approve nominees. so, my prediction is this move will allow government to operate faster, but also in a way which allows those that are more extreme to prevail. and if there is anything we do not need in government today is more extremists - on both sides of the aisle
 
This move is well overdue, and doesn't go far enough.

The essence of the legislature is not to throw so much sand in the gears that a minority -- of any party -- can halt an administration in its tracks. It's unacceptable, no matter who's doing it.

Good riddance to bad Senate rules.

Okay, just a quick question since the cat is out of the bag and now all a senate majority leader has to do to get something passed or someone nominated is to pull this nuclear option. Do you feel okay with that power in say a Senator McConnell for example if the Republicans gain the senate next year which at the moment is about 50-50 or perhaps a Senator Cruz? How about a party, let's say the Republicans come 2016 they win the presidency, they already had the house and senate. Now with this nuclear option, no filibuster they could repeal Obamacare, the Obama tax hike of the top bracket, repeal anything they wanted and then pass anything they wanted. I think the filibuster if used right stopped a lot of wild swings for this country going to the extreme right and back to the extreme left, it let us have a more even course.

That of course if it was used right and enhanced compromise between the two parties.
 
I'm fine with all of your questions happening Perotista, for better or worse..
We all agree D.C. is broken, we can't just act like we should do nothing to fix it..
The first word out of GOP mouths today after the Reid rescue was Obamacare..LOL..
Maybe tomorrow someone in D.C. will fix something .
Okay, just a quick question since the cat is out of the bag and now all a senate majority leader has to do to get something passed or someone nominated is to pull this nuclear option. Do you feel okay with that power in say a Senator McConnell for example if the Republicans gain the senate next year which at the moment is about 50-50 or perhaps a Senator Cruz? How about a party, let's say the Republicans come 2016 they win the presidency, they already had the house and senate. Now with this nuclear option, no filibuster they could repeal Obamacare, the Obama tax hike of the top bracket, repeal anything they wanted and then pass anything they wanted. I think the filibuster if used right stopped a lot of wild swings for this country going to the extreme right and back to the extreme left, it let us have a more even course.

That of course if it was used right and enhanced compromise between the two parties.
 
And you are correct to say a Majority Leader Cruz in the future will launch his own nuke, as you would say, on legislation or a SCOTUS Justice..
It doesn't matter to me now, since the Senate was frozen in an "Aaron Burr" filibuster on everything..
If Repubs want to change rules back to the 67 votes to raise taxes or whatever, so be it..
I don't see a President Christie allowing it..Frankly, I wish we could fast-forward three years from now .

Linc, I got to get my house sold, my assets moved and get the heck out of this country. If we don't fall into that abyss of financial ruin due to the rising debt, we sure as heck will implode over this highly partisan take no prisoner toxic atmosphere in Washington. One side drop a huge bomb today in the senate to break a gridlock, now we wait to see what bomb the other side drops. But I have a feeling that the president is done getting legislation of any kind passed unless somehow the Democrats take the house next year. I may be over reacting and this may all die down soon, but I doubt it. I personally think that President Obama officially became a lame duck president today thanks to Harry Reid and his nuclear option. It is suppose to take 67 votes to change the rules of the senate, his loophole has set off a ticking time bomb.

It is very possible that Reid won this battle by destroying the senate. I think Reid should have listen to Senator Levin. Levin is an old and wise man. You can't wait for the next 3 years to go by, it won't matter anymore how much time goes by. I also wouldn't assume if a republican wins in 2016 it will be Christie. With this nuclear option if it is a republican and the GOP does gain control of the senate and then two or three SCOTUS justices retire or die, Scallia, Thompson may look like flaming liberals compared to whom may be nominated and confirmed via the nuclear option. Good night my friend.
 
So I've been reading up on this and I have.............................an opinionG.

Since the Senate will be all Obama all the time, a great deal of new legislation that is sheer Obama is coming very, very soon.

So by election 2014, Obama will have a tough time claiming that nobody loves him. He will OWN whatever happens next.

If it works, it will be Democrats forever. If it fails, there will be an 8 year backlash.

These will be interesting times. Is Obama a radical? I've seen the accusation. Now, we find out for once and all. Or is Liberalism the new way of the country. Can we relinquish our jobs and find our inner artist? Will we crash and burn? Will we create new bubbles? Will the unicorn appear in the magic garden. Will the cat become the national animal?

Damn, I'm excited.
 
Mr. Speclebang, is that your cat's name..Anyway, you're leaving out the other half of Congress..
The GOP House has proven itself fully capable of doing nothing, so who cares what the Senate passes,
like Sen. Rubio's Immigration bill, which still gets him booed in front of TEAts .
 
Mr. Speclebang, is that your cat's name..Anyway, you're leaving out the other half of Congress..
The GOP House has proven itself fully capable of doing nothing, so who cares what the Senate passes,
like Sen. Rubio's Immigration bill, which still gets him booed in front of TEAts .

I can answer that what with all my afternoon research. He can appoint judges to courts that rule on EPA issues. Once the openings are filled with left-sympathetic judges, the EPA will clamp down on power plants. Sure, you need congress to pass certain legislation but the balance of power has shifted a great deal. Same thing for FED appointees. Obama can pick the QE sympathizers instead of QE naysayers.
 
Linc, I got to get my house sold, my assets moved and get the heck out of this country. If we don't fall into that abyss of financial ruin due to the rising debt, we sure as heck will implode over this highly partisan take no prisoner toxic atmosphere in Washington. One side drop a huge bomb today in the senate to break a gridlock, now we wait to see what bomb the other side drops. But I have a feeling that the president is done getting legislation of any kind passed unless somehow the Democrats take the house next year. I may be over reacting and this may all die down soon, but I doubt it. I personally think that President Obama officially became a lame duck president today thanks to Harry Reid and his nuclear option. It is suppose to take 67 votes to change the rules of the senate, his loophole has set off a ticking time bomb.

It is very possible that Reid won this battle by destroying the senate. I think Reid should have listen to Senator Levin. Levin is an old and wise man. You can't wait for the next 3 years to go by, it won't matter anymore how much time goes by. I also wouldn't assume if a republican wins in 2016 it will be Christie. With this nuclear option if it is a republican and the GOP does gain control of the senate and then two or three SCOTUS justices retire or die, Scallia, Thompson may look like flaming liberals compared to whom may be nominated and confirmed via the nuclear option. Good night my friend.

pero, can you send me a private message explaining what crisis would the debt cause? i see all these posts about the debt being the worst thing since the plague,
and i get frustrated why the debts seems to matter more then anything else, can you explain it to me because i don't understand what is the doomsday scenario everyone is screaming about.

on the subject of breaking the senate rules, I think that the old system of "gentlemans agreements" on the use of the fillibuster has become impossible to sustain in this era of winner take all politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom