• 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 Democrats Poised to Block Filibusters of Presidential Picks

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are on the verge of moving to eliminate the use of the filibuster against most presidential nominees, aides and senior party leaders said Wednesday, a move that would deprive Republicans of their ability to block President Obama’s picks for cabinet posts and the federal judiciary and further erode what little bipartisanship still exists in the Senate.

Democrats in the Senate are not only poised to unleash the nuclear option on filibusters. They are doing it now, at this very minute. You can watch it as it happens on C-Span 2.

Here's the deal. When Bush was in office, he threatened to unleash the nuclear option. Why? Because his candidates were all qualified, and most of them were very good choices. Same is true of Obama's candidates. Yes, they are politically to the center-left, but no Republican has said that they were not qualified. So abuse of the filibuster is about to end for presidential nominees. I agree with this. The filibuster cannot be abused for the purpose of obstruction. Period.

Article is here.
 
I'm pretty sure that neither President Bush was ever in the Senate, so he had no access to any nuclear option but the really big one (kaboom!).
 
I'm pretty sure that neither President Bush was ever in the Senate, so he had no access to any nuclear option but the really big one (kaboom!).

The Republican party controlled the Senate at that time, and yes, Bush DID threaten the nuclear option. In the end, there was a compromise and Bush's picks were confirmed.
 
The filibuster cannot be abused for the purpose of obstruction. Period.

:giggle1: There can be no use of a filibuster EVER without the purpose being obstruction so there is no use that is not an abuse if that is your position.


BTW the "nuclear" option is what rational people call the "Constitutional" option--it just doesn't sound as pornographic....and what goes around comes around. Hope the democrats enjoy all the crazy right wing judicial nominees that will be put on the bench by President Santorum when the filibuster ends, and please, the federal judiciary has not been fully staffed for decades due to obstructionism on BOTH sides of the aisle. Stop pretending this is something new.
 
Democrats in the Senate are not only poised to unleash the nuclear option on filibusters. They are doing it now, at this very minute. You can watch it as it happens on C-Span 2.

Here's the deal. When Bush was in office, he threatened to unleash the nuclear option. Why? Because his candidates were all qualified, and most of them were very good choices. Same is true of Obama's candidates. Yes, they are politically to the center-left, but no Republican has said that they were not qualified. So abuse of the filibuster is about to end for presidential nominees. I agree with this. The filibuster cannot be abused for the purpose of obstruction. Period.

Article is here.

Wrong on two points.

First Republicans are trying to stop Obama from stuff the DC court by expanding the number of judges on it.

Changing the rules for filibuster is really making a radical change in the way this country runs. You can only think this is a good idea if you believe we should do away with the 10th amendment.
 
Wrong on two points.

First Republicans are trying to stop Obama from stuff the DC court by expanding the number of judges on it.

Changing the rules for filibuster is really making a radical change in the way this country runs. You can only think this is a good idea if you believe we should do away with the 10th amendment.

Not a shred of truth to your first point. Nobody is packing the court. These are already existing vacancies:

Vacancies and pending nominations
Seat* Seat Last Held By* Vacancy Reason* Date of Vacancy* Nominee* Date of Nomination
6* John Roberts* Elevation to Supreme Court* September 25, 2005* Patricia Millett* June 4, 2013
2* Douglas H. Ginsburg* Senior status* October 14, 2011* Nina Pillard* June 4, 2013
4 * David B. Sentelle* Senior status* February 12, 2013* Robert L. Wilkins* June 4, 2013

As to your second point, if the process is repeatedly abused, then it is appropriate to do away with said process.
 
The Republican party controlled the Senate at that time, and yes, Bush DID threaten the nuclear option. In the end, there was a compromise and Bush's picks were confirmed.

Can you provide a link to where either Bush made such a threat? This is a rule of the Senate.
 
Can you provide a link to where either Bush made such a threat? This is a rule of the Senate.

I'll be glad to do your homework for you. :mrgreen:

GOP eyes 'nuclear option' for judges

In the nuclear option — some supporters call it the “constitutional” option — Frist would push through a rules change that would eliminate Senate filibusters for judicial nominees.

Democrats have been using filibuster threats, a promise to stall a nomination through extended debate, on 10 Bush judicial nominees. Such a threat requires 60 votes to overcome. The Senate did confirm 204 of the president’s 214 trial and appellate judicial nominees.

Sound familiar? Only difference is that, this time, there was no compromise agreed to, so the nuclear option was invoked.
 
Not a shred of truth to your first point. Nobody is packing the court. These are already existing vacancies:

Vacancies and pending nominations
Seat* Seat Last Held By* Vacancy Reason* Date of Vacancy* Nominee* Date of Nomination
6* John Roberts* Elevation to Supreme Court* September 25, 2005* Patricia Millett* June 4, 2013
2* Douglas H. Ginsburg* Senior status* October 14, 2011* Nina Pillard* June 4, 2013
4 * David B. Sentelle* Senior status* February 12, 2013* Robert L. Wilkins* June 4, 2013

As to your second point, if the process is repeatedly abused, then it is appropriate to do away with said process.

I think you are mistaken. My understanding is that Obama is trying to add to the number of judges on the DC circuit.

On the second point, every side feels it the other abuses this rule.
 
I think you are mistaken. My understanding is that Obama is trying to add to the number of judges on the DC circuit.

On the second point, every side feels it the other abuses this rule.

Nope - Seats 2, 4, and 6 were all vacancies of existing seats.
 
I have something to say. Did Republicans abuse the filibuster? Yes. Was the nuclear option proper? No. It sets a precedent that minority rights in the Senate will be trampled by whoever is in power. This should have been put before the voters at election time instead.
 
I'll be glad to do your homework for you. :mrgreen:

GOP eyes 'nuclear option' for judges



Sound familiar? Only difference is that, this time, there was no compromise agreed to, so the nuclear option was invoked.

I see nothing in the article that says that Bush made any threats, regarding the nuclear option or anything else. I do see Frist mentioned along with a few others who were actually members of the Senate.

If you are going to do homework for me, at least do it correctly. :mrgreen:
 
I see nothing in the article that says that Bush made any threats, regarding the nuclear option or anything else. I do see Frist mentioned along with a few others who were actually members of the Senate.

If you are going to do homework for me, at least do it correctly. :mrgreen:

Oh come on. Are you serious? I mean, are you REALLY serious? LMAO.

They were Bush's nominees. That's why I call it the Bush use of the nuclear option. Same with Obama. This is the Obama nuclear option. You really mean to tell me that Bush had no idea what was going on? Read this article, where Bush demands an up or down vote. The Republican threat came just days later. So yes, this was a Bush threat, just as Harry Reid's threat was really Obama's threat. The majority in power in the Senate are a surrogate for their leader, the president.
 
Oh come on. Are you serious? I mean, are you REALLY serious? LMAO.

They were Bush's nominees. That's why I call it the Bush use of the nuclear option. Same with Obama. This is the Obama nuclear option. You really mean to tell me that Bush had no idea what was going on? Read this article, where Bush demands an up or down vote. The Republican threat came just days later. So yes, this was a Bush threat, just as Harry Reid's threat was really Obama's threat. The majority in power in the Senate are a surrogate for their leader, the president.

You may call it Bush or Obama's use of the nuclear option, but it was the Senate changing Senate procedures which is strictly the prerogative of the Senate. This isn't some law that needs to be passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President. When the President signs something, yes, we can call it his law.
 
Back
Top Bottom