- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
sorry i thought your signature was part of your original message.
No, just a signature.
sorry i thought your signature was part of your original message.
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.
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..
So future President Christie should not have his own people ??
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?
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...
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, Linc. Couldn't figure out why the House said what they did about DOA. Makes sense now, since legislation is supposedly not included!
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?
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.
After being out for a few, my thoughts go to the GOP conference of GOVs, headed by Christie..HUH? That was an unnaturally huge leap. don't know how you came up with that...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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 .
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.