- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is nothing but "wag the dog". Dem's are declaring war on reps to change the subject from the obamacare fiasco and it is already working.
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white house in 2016 and just watch how many times this procedure is used by them to get everything they want passed and repealed.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.
(Emphasis mine)GEORGE WILL: There's no limiting principle in the principle that they're invoking, that is majorities should rule all the time. What this means is if in the spring of 2017 there is a Republican president, which there could be, the Republicans still hold the House and they have 51 Senators, they can repeal Obamacare with 51 votes. And I'm not sure the people who did this today have thought this through.
George Will: New Filibuster Rules Could Lead To Repeal Of Obamacare
(Emphasis mine)
Exactly right.
While Obama and the democrats are overjoyed to have the ability to pack the DC appeals court with their pro-ObamaCare stateist judges (it's been reported that they are the ones that will hear all the cases regarding ObamaCare regulation interpretation) me thinks that they just screwed ObamaCare into an earlier repeal than if they hadn't.
Are they, and many others that support this law, still of the opinion that everyone'll love it and the repeal movement will lose all traction? I'm kinda doubting that. I see it as more likely to be a growing snowball rolling down hill and constantly getting bigger.
A great political strategist he's not, in spite of the myths that say he is. This would appear to be just another example that he's not.
Obama: The Myth of the Master Strategist | National Review Online
a bogus threat from a typically overstated george will
by then Obamacare will be as 'easy' to repeal as a social security
we already see that the GOP has nothing to offer to replace it
don't think they intend to remove access to newly acquired healthcare from the vast numbers of its low information base
Levin realizes this move may very well come back to bite them in the butt in the near future.
Because filibusters on legislation have not been removed.How can you say wrong - the precedence has been set.
Incorrect. The rule changes do not affect either Supreme Court nominations or legislation.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.
It is far from clear they would get a majority vote for a removal of all filibusters.If something is used once, in this case just for presidential appointments and nothing else, it can and will be used again and again.
Hahahaha....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
I certainly hope so. It's a procedure that has gone from being the exception to the rule, and it's preventing the government from doing its job.This thing will escalate, mark my word.
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.
The GOP won't win the Senate or the Presidency so...ain't gonna happen. The GOP will be lucky to keep 40 Senate Seats in '14 is my opinion.That was Senator Grassley who stated that. There was another senator this morning I heard on the radio that said all the republicans want to do now is win back the senate in 2014 and take the presidency in 2016 and the ACA is history. It will take only 51 votes in the senate to repeal it.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it's supposed to work.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.
What you fail to recognize is that it is the filibuster rules that are the "loophole" here, that have expanded beyond control.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.
The GOP won't win the Senate or the Presidency so...ain't gonna happen. The GOP will be lucky to keep 40 Senate Seats in '14 is my opinion.
(Emphasis mine)
Exactly right.
While Obama and the democrats are overjoyed to have the ability to pack the DC appeals court with their pro-ObamaCare stateist judges (it's been reported that they are the ones that will hear all the cases regarding ObamaCare regulation interpretation) me thinks that they just screwed ObamaCare into an earlier repeal than if they hadn't.
Are they, and many others that support this law, still of the opinion that everyone'll love it and the repeal movement will lose all traction? I'm kinda doubting that. I see it as more likely to be a growing snowball rolling down hill and constantly getting bigger.
A great political strategist he's not, in spite of the myths that say he is. This would appear to be just another example that he's not.
Obama: The Myth of the Master Strategist | National Review Online
Of course the Reps would try to pack the court. Wouldn't make it right with me either. Also, the Congress decides how many seats are on any given court.I read that, too....
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?
I would prefer it be balanced. The SCOTUS does lean right, but not that far. The Chief Justice is probably only one of two (Kennedy the other) that are centrally located in the realm of ideology. But again, the number of seats on the court isn't a hard written in stone number. Just because a seat is open, it doesn't have to be filled. If the Senate reduced the number of seats, there would be no guarantee that the Republicans could increase the number at a later date.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.
That would be great, and make good TV as well.I hope they bring the old style of filibuster back.....
You're a good poster and make some good points, Beau. It's a pleasure talking to you.
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 .
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 .
Except if you've been following along you'd know this dem rule change does not apply to SCOTUS nominations or to legislation. It's strictly centered around non-SCOTUS judicial appointments.
Mostly just see the Base of the GOP chasing away what they call RINOs and as a result losing the votes of Gays, Immigrants, Blacks, and Women. So, pray tell. How do you see them winning?Cause your so unbiased.
Mostly just see the Base of the GOP chasing away what they call RINOs and as a result losing the votes of Gays, Immigrants, Blacks, and Women. So, pray tell. How do you see them winning?
Obamacare.
a bogus threat from a typically overstated george will
by then Obamacare will be as 'easy' to repeal as a social security
we already see that the GOP has nothing to offer to replace it
don't think they intend to remove access to newly acquired healthcare from the vast numbers of its low information base
A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.
Yeah, that's what they are saying right now, well at least most of them. It was reported this morning that one of the Democrats was already saying that they'd use the nuclear option to appoint supreme court justices (just can't remember which one), and I think that's what Obama is going to end up doing.
:lol:
I doubt gays, immigrants, blacks, women and the young will be changing their votes over to the GOP simply because Obamacare hit a few snags.
:lol:
I doubt gays, immigrants, blacks, women and the young will be changing their votes over to the GOP simply because Obamacare hit a few snags.
I never understood why people take individuals, wrap them up in a single attribute, and toss them around like tools. Last time I checked, your skin color, time in this country, sexual orientation,age, or gender doesn't plays a role in intelligence and cognitive thinking.
If any individual feels they are negatively affected by Obamacare( cancelled policy, increased premiums, increased deductions, increased copays, decreased choice in doctors, etc ), that will be on their mind when they vote.