• 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

Beaudreaux said:
Looks like you and I watched the same episode of Rachel Maddow last night. I watched to see what her spin would be, not to repeat it here as you just did.
Click to expand...

Somebody had to do it. lol

Besides, it's true. Now instead of 3 nominations getting passed....there will be 97 and McConnell has only himself to blame.
 
shrubnose said:
Believe whatever you want to believe.

The GOP made this happen with its unprecedented obstructionism based solely on politics.

Any GOP Senators who can't deal with this should just retire, go home and stay there.

If the GOP ever gets control of the Senate again, it can always change this to make it easier for the Democrats to block their agenda.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Click to expand...

A centrist would love a purely Democrat run Congress wouldn't he?
 
justabubba said:
it's academic now as the genie cannot be put back in the bottle
but i prefer a more deliberative process.....
Click to expand...
We already have a deliberative process. Both parties, but especially the recent Republican party, have gone well over the line from "deliberative" to "obstructionist."

The filibuster has no Constitutional basis. When it was rarely used, there was no reason to get rid of it. Since half of all the filibusters of executive nominees have happened in the past 5 years, clearly this option has been misused.


this move will allow government to operate faster, but also in a way which allows those that are more extreme to prevail.
Click to expand...
Yeah, too bad it is the "more extreme" legislators which are using these filibusters to hamstring the executive.
 
Moot said:
Since republicans have already proven they're are willing to shut down the government for ideological reasons and to obstruct democracy, is there any doubt that Republicans wouldn't have changed the fillabuster rules if they controled the senate? The dems did the right thing.

McConnell made a huge miscalculation in not letting the 3 federal judge appointments come to a vote. He didn't think Reid would change the filabuster rule, but after years of obstruction, not to mention the recent attempt to eliminate the three vacant seats, he forced the democrats hand and now instead of just 3 judge appointments....there will be 97 because of the long backlog of obstructed nominations. LOL

It will be a very long time before Republicans can tilt the judiciary in their favor now.
Click to expand...

The GOP had already agreed to 1 of them before the rules changes, but Reid wouldn't pick which one :doh
 
American said:
A centrist would love a purely Democrat run Congress wouldn't he
Click to expand...
?
Click to expand...

We may see one in the not-distant future if the GOP doesn't start attracting a lot more minority voters.




What I would really love to see is a Senate and a Congress where the number one priority was trying to do a good job for the American people and politics was put on the back burner.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
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?
Click to expand...
YES.

One of the jobs of the executive branch is to make these appointments. It is unacceptable for the legislature to obstruct and thwart this process, regardless of who is in charge.


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....
Click to expand...
WRONG.

Filibusters on the legislature have not been removed. The only filibuster they've eliminated is on presidential appointments.

In addition, it's pretty much par for the course for the legislature to be allowed to repeal laws. No one, regardless of party, should be allowed to pass a law that cannot possibly be repealed.


That of course if it was used right and enhanced compromise between the two parties.
Click to expand...
It's very clear that the filibuster on appointees has been thoroughly abused, and does far more harm than good. It's well past time for it to go.
 
The liars of the democrat party strike yet again. Obama, Reid, Biden, Feinstein and many more are all on record as having opposed the senate going nuclear. Now, as the usually do, they tell lies why they did it. Just as the many lies of Obamadon'tcare has firmly bit the democrats in the backside this bundle of lies will as well.

But regardless, the hardcore useful idiots that support these liars couldn't care less that the leaders they support have no integrity at all. Reminds me of how the members of the communist party supported the leaders of the USSR.
 
Perotista said:
I personally think that President Obama officially became a lame duck president today thanks to Harry Reid and his nuclear option.
Click to expand...
The Republicans decided long ago to virulently oppose just about any legislation offered by Obama and/or Congressional Democrats. They decided before Obama took office to grind government to a halt.

This has not made Obama less effective; in fact, it's made the executive more effective. He can actually make an appointment, and have it go through.


It is very possible that Reid won this battle by destroying the senate.
Click to expand...
Please, spare us the hyperbole.

The filibuster has no Constitutional basis; in fact, it has come to thwart the concept of the Senate, by requiring a supermajority for almost every vote. It is only in recent years that filibusters have gone from requiring actual work, to merely putting anonymous holds onto nominees. It's time for this nonsense to go.
 
Moot said:
Somebody had to do it. lol

Besides, it's true. Now instead of 3 nominations getting passed....there will be 97 and McConnell has only himself to blame.
Click to expand...

LOL....

I like watching Maddow. She has a number of fiscally conservative views that I can agree with. We differ on many, many things, but I still like watching her. She makes me think. Most times I just laugh, but some times she makes me say "Hmmm" and those are the times that make it worth while to watch.

As for the court appointments? This was a power grab for the DC Circuit since that's the only court (other than SCOTUS) that reviews Congressional actions or hears cases regarding laws passed by Congress.

Yes, there are 93 total vacancies in the courts. Since Obama came to office, the Senate has approved (consented) to 200+ court appointments, so it's not like there haven't been any.

3 of those 93 are in the DC Circuit. Currently, the DC Circuit is balanced, 4 Dems and 4 Reps, and that court is not behind on case load, so there's no need for the other three judges. Rachel talked about the entire federal court being balanced right now, but that isn't the concern. The balance of the DC Circuit is, and should be a concern for all of us.

I wouldn't want the DC Circuit overloaded with either sides appointees. Balance in that court is a good thing.

There are other circuits that ARE behind in case load, and need appointments. And those should have been the focus since the balance of those courts is not as critical, if critical at all.

This whole thing has been coming to a head for over a decade. Both parties have obstructed the other when they were in the minority. Dems and Reps. It's what has become the normal in DC.

Personally, I prefer to have the filibuster, no matter which party is in power. It forces the majority party to slow down, get consensus from at least some to the minority, and makes for a more deliberate and thought out process.
 
Fisher said:
The GOP had already agreed to 1 of them before the rules changes, but Reid wouldn't pick which one :doh
Click to expand...
Was that before or after the GOP proposed to eliminate the three vacant judicial seats? Do you have a link?



WASHINGTON -- A dozen state attorneys general are urging the Senate to reject an effort by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to strip the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of three of its seats and therefore prevent President Barack Obama from filling vacant judgeships on the court....read..

AGs Reject Chuck Grassley Effort To Shrink D.C. Circuit Court
 
And here come more changes....

Harkin calls for more rule changes | TheHill

After the Senate voted to change filibuster rules Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for more reforms.

“This has been escalating for a long period of time and it was time to stop it and that’s what we did this morning,” Harkin said. “Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”
Click to expand...
 
Beaudreaux said:
LOL....

I like watching Maddow. She has a number of fiscally conservative views that I can agree with. We differ on many, many things, but I still like watching her. She makes me think. Most times I just laugh, but some times she makes me say "Hmmm" and those are the times that make it worth while to watch.

As for the court appointments? This was a power grab for the DC Circuit since that's the only court (other than SCOTUS) that reviews Congressional actions or hears cases regarding laws passed by Congress.

Yes, there are 93 total vacancies in the courts. Since Obama came to office, the Senate has approved (consented) to 200+ court appointments, so it's not like there haven't been any.

3 of those 93 are in the DC Circuit. Currently, the DC Circuit is balanced, 4 Dems and 4 Reps, and that court is not behind on case load, so there's no need for the other three judges.
Click to expand...
I read that, too....
"....Republicans backing Grassley's bill say the D.C Circuit isn't busy enough to warrant filling its three empty seats, a charge that Democrats contest. Obama has said he has a constitutional duty to fill court vacancies. GOP senators have also falsely accused the president of "court-packing" for trying to fill empty seats..." AGs Reject Chuck Grassley Effort To Shrink D.C. Circuit Court
Click to expand...

As president, Obama has a right to fill those empty seats just as much as a republican president would. Do you doubt for a minute that the GOP wouldn't if they could?


Rachel talked about the entire federal court being balanced right now, but that isn't the concern. The balance of the DC Circuit is, and should be a concern for all of us.

I wouldn't want the DC Circuit overloaded with either sides appointees. Balance in that court is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I suppose. But if there are three vacant seats then that suggests the court hasn't always been balanced and if has to lean I would prefer it to lean left....especially given the fact that SCOTUS leans to the right There's the balance.

There are other circuits that ARE behind in case load, and need appointments. And those should have been the focus since the balance of those courts is not as critical, if critical at all.

This whole thing has been coming to a head for over a decade. Both parties have obstructed the other when they were in the minority. Dems and Reps. It's what has become the normal in DC.

Personally, I prefer to have the filibuster, no matter which party is in power. It forces the majority party to slow down, get consensus from at least some to the minority, and makes for a more deliberate and thought out process.
Click to expand...
I hope they bring the old style of filibuster back.....
...Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said that he would like to see the next fight on the filibuster to be to require senators to actually stand on the floor and talk if they wanted to stall legislation.
Click to expand...

You're a good poster and make some good points, Beau. It's a pleasure talking to you. :)
 
Navy Pride said:
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.
Click to expand...

He has a (R) behind his name, NP....You will definitely vote for him.
 
Could it be that Democrats are afraid of losing the Senate next year, so theyre trying to push through whatever they can before that happens?
 
NIMBY said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Linc, you have a lot more faith in D.C. than I do. Being I belong to a third political party, I reveled in the fact that the number of independents were growing, fairly fast in fact. From around 30% of the electorate during Perot’s time to 46/47% today. That is a lot of people for the two major parties to lose. Using the latest Gallup figures the Democrats drop from 38% of the electorate back in the 1990’s to 28% today while the Republicans fell from 30% to 23%. When you throw in the fact that back during Perot’s run, only 39% said they would consider voting for a third party candidate. Today that is 81%, this all left me feeling the golden opportunity for a viable third party had arrived.

But what I am afraid that happened was all the more moderate members of the Republicans and Democrats left the two major parties. This has left the two parties with only their base becoming more hard core, more extreme right and left, more partisan, more unwilling to compromise and more ideological. When both party’s members are now at the far end of the political spectrums, compromise is a nonstarter, working together becomes near impossible, each party wants the whole ball of wax or nothing. Gridlock and non-governing occurs. We entered into a phase where our elected officials now only look to the good of their political party and not to the good of the nation. Both parties have become more interested in defeating the other party’s agenda and legislation than passing their own. Good governing and governing for the people and the nation has been replaced with a win of all cost attitude, even if it means destroying the very institutions that have served us so well.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

you are correct, in today's political atmosphere, it is winner take all and to heck with the rest. For me, the debt is the biggest threat to our national security and this nation's future. How much longer can it be sustain at a reasonable rate, sooner or later the interest rate will rise from an all time low of 1-2% back up to normal of 6%. But I will get back with you on this.
 
jonny5 said:
Could it be that Democrats are afraid of losing the Senate next year, so theyre trying to push through whatever they can before that happens?
Click to expand...

Yes..
 
Visbek said:
YES.

One of the jobs of the executive branch is to make these appointments. It is unacceptable for the legislature to obstruct and thwart this process, regardless of who is in charge.



WRONG.

Filibusters on the legislature have not been removed. The only filibuster they've eliminated is on presidential appointments.

In addition, it's pretty much par for the course for the legislature to be allowed to repeal laws. No one, regardless of party, should be allowed to pass a law that cannot possibly be repealed.



It's very clear that the filibuster on appointees has been thoroughly abused, and does far more harm than good. It's well past time for it to go.
Click to expand...

How can you say wrong - the precedence has been set. In the future any senate majority can now use this option to end any filibuster either on SCOTUS nominees or to pass or repeal any legislation. By doing this, Reid has put this ploy on the table for future use on anything the senate does or attempts to do. If something is used once, in this case just for presidential appointments and nothing else, it can and will be used again and again. The cat is out of the bag. In fact according to the news this morning I have read where several Republicans already say their will use this precedence, this same procedure used by senator Reid if they win the white house in 2016 to get their SCOTUS nominees through and to repeal the ACA. Senator Grassley stated, "When the roles are reversed they will apply the 51 vote filibuster threshold to a republican president's Supreme Court nominees. Next up was another senator who said once the Republicans win back the senate and the white house they would use this same rule that Reid had used to repeal the ACA.

But perhaps Reid should have listen to senator Carl Leven of Michigan who noted that past Democratic minorities have used the filibuster to block GOP moves to limit abortion and repeal the estate tax. Everything is now on the table and I think Senator McCain summed it up right, he said, "When the majority can change the rules, then there are no rules."

This thing will escalate, mark my word.
 
Visbek said:
YES.

One of the jobs of the executive branch is to make these appointments. It is unacceptable for the legislature to obstruct and thwart this process, regardless of who is in charge.


WRONG.

Filibusters on the legislature have not been removed. The only filibuster they've eliminated is on presidential appointments.

In addition, it's pretty much par for the course for the legislature to be allowed to repeal laws. No one, regardless of party, should be allowed to pass a law that cannot possibly be repealed.



It's very clear that the filibuster on appointees has been thoroughly abused, and does far more harm than good. It's well past time for it to go.
Click to expand...

Get back with me if the republicans win the senate next year and perhaps the white house in 2016 and just watch how many times this procedure is used by them to get everything they want passed and repealed. You must have a lot of trust in the republicans. The tooth paste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back. The senate rules state it take 67 votes to change them, but Reid used a loophole. That little loop hole will grow pretty darn big in the future. Big enough to drive a train through and then it will keep expanding.
 
Perotista said:
Get back with me if the republicans win the senate next year and perhaps the white house in 2016 and just watch how many times this procedure is used by them to get everything they want passed and repealed. You must have a lot of trust in the republicans. The tooth paste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back. The senate rules state it take 67 votes to change them, but Reid used a loophole. That little loop hole will grow pretty darn big in the future. Big enough to drive a train through and then it will keep expanding.
Click to expand...

Republicans have already stated once they take back the senate, they will be adding SC judges to the list of appointments that can't be filibustered. Democrats will completly change their position on this move once that happens.
 
buck said:
Republicans have already stated once they take back the senate, they will be adding SC judges to the list of appointments that can't be filibustered. Democrats will completly change their position on this move once that happens.
Click to expand...


I think it's pretty obvious that Harry Reid will hold the current rule until a Supreme Court Judge nomination comes up, and then he will change that too. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that his last act as a lame duck Senate Majority leader will be to reinstate the Filibuster rule and then scream blood murder if the big evil Republicans even hint at doing what he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom