• 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

As if! The GOP have literally done NOTHING legislatively since President Obama has been elected especially during his 2nd term. This is GREAT because finally the Senate can get some work done. The GOP strategy to block EVERYTHING will backfire far more than the change to the filibuster rule. It's so much fun watching the GOP beat each other up day after day after day...

All anyone has to do if you want to be objective is look at the amount of filibusters since Obama became President versus the rest of American history to know how the GOP have abused the rule and now, finally, there's an end to their destroy Obama at all costs tactic - at least for nominations. They will, of course, continue to oppose any legislation from the Democrats even if the majority of House members would pass the bill if put up for a vote, i.e. ENDA, Immigration Reform etc.

Excuse me. The obstructionism isn't all how I think you are thinking it is.

Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts | TheHill

As of earlier this year, Old Dirty Harry has obstructed 290 house bills, languishing on this desk because he doesn't like them.

When it comes to being bi-partisan, the house has a much better record.

Republican House Passing More Bipartisan Legislation Than Democratic Senate - PolicyMic

So who's the party of "No"? Who's really obstructing the business of the congress?
 
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 get what you're saying but it could go either way. Most folks who oppose this rule change do so along party/ideological lines. Moreover, they're expecting some payback should the GOP remain control of the Senate in the near future. Ghe mindset being "Republicans will use a simple majority vote to push through nominees of their own". Well, what's to say they (or either party) wouldn't use a simple majority to still block a presidential nominee from the opposing party? It could work both ways.

Frankly, I think this rule change in the Senate is long overdue. Too much gridlock for no other reason than to carry forward with party/ideological grandstanding.
 
Frankly, this is little more than what we've been seeing from this congress for along time already.

It's yet another escalation of harmful tactics that both sides take great glee in pulling out when it's in their advantage and squawking about when it's not.

My hope would be that cooler heads will prevail soon, but short of that, the political gamesmen would be removed by the voting booth.

It's been posted that this hurts governing the country, this continued escalation of tactics and retribution, and I couldn't agree more.
 
It is entirely immaterial who uses it more.

The question isn't about use ...
The question is about ABUSE.
Do you believe for one instant that the framers of the constitution had total obstruction by the minority party in mind when the filibuster was instituted?
McConnell abused the rule to obstruct ALL the President's appointments, leaving so many vacancies to the court that it's very function is in jeopardy.
THAT IS material.
That is what this is all about.
The balance of powers is an important feature of the congress.
Nobody ever expected it would be abused as McConnell has chosen to do.
No one ever expected a congressional leader would want to stop EVERY appointment in such an irresponsible way.
Extreme abuse calls for extreme measures. Harry did what he had to do, as much as he hated the need to do it.
Mcconnell and the republicon anarchists/obstructionists brought this on ...not Harry.
 
Well, Reid opened the door to further "tweaks" of the filibuster rule in the future. If you think this will be the last change, you are naive.

And just for fun, thanks to the Washington Times:

Harry Reid then: “My Republican colleagues claim that nominees are entitled to an up-down vote. That claim ignores history, including recent history.” (floor speech, April 26, 2005)

Harry Reid now: “These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote. But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the president his team.”


Harry Reid then: “Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power … They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.” (floor speech, May 18, 2005)

Harry Reid now: "This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work – regardless of who’s in the White House or who controls the Senate. To remain relevant and effective as an institution, the Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of a modern era.”

Harry Reid, later: The nuclear option, “simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate.” (from the book The Good Fight: Hard Lessons from Searchlight to Washington, 2008)

Harry Reid now: “It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.”
 
Well, Reid opened the door to further "tweaks" of the filibuster rule in the future. If you think this will be the last change, you are naive.

And just for fun, thanks to the Washington Times:
exposes his hypocrisy
thanks for the post/quotes
 
The framers didn't anticipate filibuster and didn't really institute the filibuster. The 1830s was when filibuster was actually born. Modern filibuster in no way resembles the filibuster of the 1830s. The senate has the constitutional grant to make, alter and do away with these rules.

As to holding off all Obama appointments, that's a good thing considering his track record. Name one good appointment he's made (that have made office). Appointments are a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips and deserve careful examination.
 
Last edited:
The question isn't about use ...
The question is about ABUSE.
Do you believe for one instant that the framers of the constitution had total obstruction by the minority party in mind when the filibuster was instituted?
McConnell abused the rule to obstruct ALL the President's appointments, leaving so many vacancies to the court that it's very function is in jeopardy.
THAT IS material.
That is what this is all about.
The balance of powers is an important feature of the congress.
Nobody ever expected it would be abused as McConnell has chosen to do.
No one ever expected a congressional leader would want to stop EVERY appointment in such an irresponsible way.
Extreme abuse calls for extreme measures. Harry did what he had to do, as much as he hated the need to do it.
Mcconnell and the republicon anarchists/obstructionists brought this on ...not Harry.

The filibuster was created in 1806 as a result of Aaron Burr encouraging the Senate to clean up its rules, but the lack of any truth whatsoever in your post clearly will not get in the way of your cheerleading for the Kenyan dude.
 
Harry Reid changed the procedural rules of the Senate unilaterally to be able to hold the vote to change the filibusterer rule. The GOP in the Senate will make him eat this. Good bye any budget compromise in the spring; goodbye immigration reform; goodbye democratic control of the senate. Harry Reid just turned Obama into a lame duck 2 years early and empowered the Tea Party by a magnitude of 10. Political karma just loves dirty tricks.
Just as Bohner unilaterally changed the voting rules to perpetuate the shut down.
BTW this rule change ONLY applies to approval of appointment nominees.
All other filibuster abilities remain completely in tact.
Legislative and budget concerns will not be effected in any way.
The political karma will be that the senate will remain Democratic because of McConnell's abuse of power.
The country as a whole hate the Teabagger party.
 
Just as Bohner unilaterally changed the voting rules to perpetuate the shut down.
BTW this rule change ONLY applies to approval of appointment nominees.
All other filibuster abilities remain completely in tact.

Legislative and budget concerns will not be effected in any way.
The political karma will be that the senate will remain Democratic because of McConnell's abuse of power.
The country as a whole hate the Teabagger party.

Right now, this is correct. However, the taboo is gone. Prepare for further changes to the rules.
 
:lamo
cheerleading for the Kenyan dude
Ok you just demonstrated your own ignorance... no need for me to comment any further on you.:rofl:applaud:funny
 
The framers didn't anticipate filibuster and didn't really institute the filibuster. The 1830s was when filibuster was actually born. Modern filibuster in no way resembles the filibuster of the 1830s. The senate has the constitutional grant to make, alter and do away with these rules.

As to holding off all Obama appointments, that's a good thing considering his track record. Name one good appointment he's made (that have made office). Appointments are a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips and deserve careful examination.
Of course the framers didn't anticipate the filibuster, as evidence they said in the case of a tie vote the President of the Senate (the V.P.) could break the tie.
 
Nobody but partisans are going to care. 95% of voters won't even know what this means.
 
Harry Reid finally comes through

The Senate has voted to change its rules so that a simple majority is required to confirm judicial nominations and executive branch picks — the so-called “nuclear option.”
The final vote was 52-48. The previous threshold was 60 votes to bring such nominations to a final up-or-down vote.
“The threshold for cloture on nominations not including the Supreme Court, is now a majority,” Sen Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate president pro temp, declared after the vote.
Three Democrats voted with Republicans against the change: Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Levin is a longtime senator; Manchin and Pryor come from red states.
Shortly after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) office sent around a memo noting that the Senate has changed its procedures using a majority vote 18 times since 1977. Republicans, though, note that none of the changes rise to the level of today’s change.

Senate approves nuclear option

Its about damn time. Well done!
 
Of course the framers didn't anticipate the filibuster, as evidence they said in the case of a tie vote the President of the Senate (the V.P.) could break the tie.

Not really, here ya go:

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question", ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[2] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[2] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

Source
 
Harry Reid changed the procedural rules of the Senate unilaterally to be able to hold the vote to change the filibusterer rule. The GOP in the Senate will make him eat this. Good bye any budget compromise in the spring; goodbye immigration reform; goodbye democratic control of the senate. Harry Reid just turned Obama into a lame duck 2 years early and empowered the Tea Party by a magnitude of 10. Political karma just loves dirty tricks.

Are you theorizing what may come or basking in foreseeable glory? Either way you've highlighted what's wrong with Congress today - too much revenge politics and not enough governance.
 
Not really, here ya go:
Nothing in the quote from Wiki relates to what I wrote.
The U.S. Constitution made provisions for each House to adopt their own rules, however I seriously doubt they anticipated the cloture vote requirement.
 
I get what you're saying but it could go either way. Most folks who oppose this rule change do so along party/ideological lines. Moreover, they're expecting some payback should the GOP regain control of the Senate in the near future. The mindset being "Republicans will use a simple majority vote to push through nominees of their own". Well, what's to say they (or either party) wouldn't use a simple majority to still block a presidential nominee from the opposing party? It could work both ways.

Frankly, I think this rule change in the Senate is long overdue. Too much gridlock for no other reason than to carry forward with party/ideological grandstanding.
Dag nabbit! There's a reason I hate posting from my phone....too difficult catching spelling errors. LOL

Corrections made.
 
If they think the house was gridlocked before hahaha, oh wait till they see what's next. This is going to be comical. Can one of the free states please just secede already so we can get this show on the road? The foreplay is getting boring.

What they don't realize, is this works BOTH ways. I suppose that means the judicial branch will be just another wing of the executive now (not that it hasn't been flush with Ideologues already).

Gotta love that system of checks and balances :roll: So, progressives, please explain to me what happens when there's another Bush in office, or worse, a Bushbama hybrid hellbent on a complete police state....
That's the one thing I've noticed about progressives...lack of any foresight. I swear they sniff glue in the capital building bathrooms. Good luck to us all, this will have long term implications we can't even comprehend. Washington is populated by functional window lickers. Knee-jerk emotional responses with little thought into it. Typical.
 
Are you theorizing what may come or basking in foreseeable glory? Either way you've highlighted what's wrong with Congress today - too much revenge politics and not enough governance.

I'm laughing at to the lack of foresight the progressives have. This, literally, just sealed their fate for the next two election cycles. Knee-jerk reactions are their specialty. I was counting on them to screw up, but I never thought it would be this bad. This is going to be an epic trainwreck, even by this administrations standards.
 
Nothing in the quote from Wiki relates to what I wrote.
The U.S. Constitution made provisions for each House to adopt their own rules, however I seriously doubt they anticipated the cloture vote requirement.

It was your tie vote comment I was referring to. Has nothing to do with the filibuster and it's origins. A filibuster comes before the floor vote is considered. Filibuster keeps something from going to a up/down floor vote (where the VP would have a tie breaker vote).

The filibuster is widely viewed as one of the Senate’s most characteristic procedural features.
Filibustering includes any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure by preventing
it from coming to a vote. The possibility of filibusters exists because Senate rules place few limits
on Senators’ rights and opportunities in the legislative process.

Source
 
The GOP in the Senate will make him eat this. Good bye any budget compromise in the spring; goodbye immigration reform; goodbye democratic control of the senate. Harry Reid just turned Obama into a lame duck 2 years early and empowered the Tea Party by a magnitude of 10. Political karma just loves dirty tricks.
You can possibly add, "goodbye unanimous consent" to that list as well.
 
Harry Reid finally comes through

The Senate has voted to change its rules so that a simple majority is required to confirm judicial nominations and executive branch picks — the so-called “nuclear option.”
The final vote was 52-48. The previous threshold was 60 votes to bring such nominations to a final up-or-down vote.
“The threshold for cloture on nominations not including the Supreme Court, is now a majority,” Sen Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate president pro temp, declared after the vote.
Three Democrats voted with Republicans against the change: Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Levin is a longtime senator; Manchin and Pryor come from red states.
Shortly after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) office sent around a memo noting that the Senate has changed its procedures using a majority vote 18 times since 1977. Republicans, though, note that none of the changes rise to the level of today’s change.

Senate approves nuclear option

what goes around, comes around
 
Back
Top Bottom