• 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

pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The damn thing is about as anti-American as it gets in Congress. Even then I would not mind the filibuster in proper Mr. Smith/HJames Stewart fashion instead of most of the pansy sissy nonsense that passes for it today.
 
polgara said:
Either the Dems believe that they will have the majority way into the future, or they are showing us how short-sighted politicians can be when time is measured using only a "when's the next election" yardstick. Both parties are guilty of this flaw in their thinking, BTW, so it must be a common malady affecting those in politics. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm trying to remember how John Adams put it when he said something akin "We are a nation of laws, not of men." In other words when are laws and rules are changed to suit the man, we are no longer that nation of laws. This nuclear option change was made to suit the whims of the man that rules over us, not the man ruling over us that follows the rules and the laws. So the bottom line we are fast becoming a nation of men, not a nation of rules and laws.
 
jakiejakester said:
Gee you think it would have been a smart thing to appoint someone to be our UN Ambassador who is against the UN as a body? The genius of GW Bush is never to be overlooked....
Click to expand...

:) Actually it's called "counterstaffing", and it's a smart tactic used by executives who do not want their key subordinates to become subject to bureaucratic capture. The willingness of liberals not to allow their lack of education to stop them from from attempting to deride the intelligence of President Bush is indeed never to be overlooked. ;)
 
jakiejakester said:
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.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, if the GOP "has done nothing" then why does Obama keep calling them "obstructionists"?
 
Perotista said:
I'm trying to remember how John Adams put it when he said something akin "We are a nation of laws, not of men." In other words when are laws and rules are changed to suit the man, we are no longer that nation of laws. This nuclear option change was made to suit the whims of the man that rules over us, not the man ruling over us that follows the rules and the laws. So the bottom line we are fast becoming a nation of men, not a nation of rules and laws.
Click to expand...

Show me where the filibuster was written into the US Constitution. It isn't. In fact, the filibuster was not used for several years after the founding of our nation. It was instituted by a vote on the rules in the Senate. Now the Constitution DOES have something to say about that....
US Constitution Article I said:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Click to expand...

Nothing unconstitutional or illegal was done today.
 
The earliest known use of something like the filibuster being used in a legislative body goes back to ancient Rome 60 BC.
This is not an American invention.
The senate like the house once had a simple majority rule to cut off debate on the floor. This rule was mistakenly removed in an attempt to streamline the procedural rules and the potential for the filibuster came into being in 1805.
When McConnell chose to abuse this loophole in procedural rules by filibustering EVERY nomination the President made, he brought on this change that occurred today. Appointments will now proceed as was intended and approval will only require a simple majority...like the used to do ...like the house.
This is not the end of the world as some have depicted .
It is a return to some semblance of democracy where presidential appointments are concerned..
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
You are the one who must be facetious... ONE Democratic filibuster as opposed to how many republicon filibusters?
Click to expand...

Oh, there were plenty on both sides. Republicans certainly struck back, but the growth of the filibuster of Presidential appointees during the Bush administration leaves them in the retaliatory seat. If you want to trace it back to its' roots, then that would be the disastrous Senate proceedings surrounding the nomination of Judge Bork to the Supreme Court. Democrats struck first. Republicans get their sticks in when they can and when they think it is appropriate.
 
Buck Ewer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it won't happen. You do realize that by changing the rule as to one thing and leaving it in place as to others will 1) not be in place for anything when the GOP gains control and 2) means the moderate republicans in the Senate will be on board with shutting the government down in march by refusing to break a filibuster.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Screw you, we won" is a two way street.
 
Republicans get their sticks in when they can and when they think it is appropriate.
Click to expand...
On EVERY nomination?
No that is not simple retaliation ...
...that is abuse.
 
One of the fundamental differences in a Republic and a Democracy is the ability of a Minority Vote to have a voice. Eliminating a filibuster moves us towards a Mob Rule.

People are bitching that this is a Dem Power Grab... I assure you that when the GOP is back in majority, they will never consider the repeal of this rule.
 
clownboy said:
Levin realizes this move may very well come back to bite them in the butt in the near future.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me if the three Democrats were instructed to vote against the motion so that once all the Obama nominations have been cleared, one of the three can move reconsideration of the motion and rescind it going back to the 60 vote threshold before they lose the Senate in 2014.
 
Fisher said:
Sorry but it won't happen. You do realize that by changing the rule as to one thing and leaving it in place as to others will 1) not be in place for anything when the GOP gains control and 2) means the moderate republicans in the Senate will be on board with shutting the government down in march by refusing to break a filibuster.
Click to expand...
Republicons regaining control of the senate?
Ha ...you can't gerrymander a state.
Republicons sealed their doom with the last shutdown.
 
shrubnose said:
True, but sometimes the Senate needs to get something done.
Click to expand...

If you change the rules at the beginning of a term or session, then you have legitimate grounds to say it is a bad rule. When you change rules so you can change a rule so you can get what you want today, you have screwed yourself for tomorrow, and that applies to both parties, and no, the Senate did not need to get anything done. The GOP had agreed to give the DNC 1 of the 3 vacancies on a less than busy circuit and that wasn't good enough for Harry Reid.
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, if the GOP "has done nothing" then why does Obama keep calling them "obstructionists"?
Click to expand...
This will give you a good idea:
20121130-graph-why-we-need-filibuster-reform.png
 
cpwill said:
No I am not. What did he vow to them?
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, Senator Graham has indicated he would put a hold on any Obama nominee in committee until such time as the administration releases to congress the transcripts of the FBI interviews of the Benghazi survivors and allows congress to interview them as well. To date, the administration has objected, likely fearing the truth on the ground blows up their storyline.
 
pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Any Senator who can't deal with this should go home and stay there.
 
I see this action as an indication that Reid knows he's going to lose the Senate next year. I think he figures it's better to get what he wants now (or as much as he can) before he's dumped into minority status.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

To block a nomination with a simple majority a party must have control of the senate or at least 51 senators and is no longer the minority party. Now if the Republicans gain the senate in 2014, then a simple majority is just as good as a majority of 60 to invoke cloture. We're talking minority party rights which means they have 49 senators or less.

Granted this particular nuclear option was on just judicial nominees as I understand. But the precedence has been set for which ever party has control of the senate, to invoke that option to avoid or do away with the filibuster. There is nothing that says now that the cat is out of the bag that this nuclear option can't be used on other things at the sole discretion of the senate majority leader, who ever he is or from what ever party.

John Adams when discussing American ideals said we are "A nation of laws, not of men." But I fear this change disregarded the laws and rules and was made for the "Man." That this puts us on the slippery slope of changing this nation from the rule of law to the rule of "The Man."

I may be wrong, I hope so. But unless a rule change like this is bipartisan it smacks of the rule of man over the rule of law and rules.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Republicons regaining control of the senate?
Ha ...you can't gerrymander a state.
Republicons sealed their doom with the last shutdown.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. Obama is about to discover how many democrats don't want Mexicans here either.
 
Erod said:
And when you lose both houses and the presidency soon, I don't want to hear a thing from you. Paybacks are hell.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I don't believe that is going to happen, but if it does we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom