• 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

Buck Ewer said:
Ummm... before you start drooling over "terrible revenge" ...We are talking about non-Supreme Court presidential appointments only.
The republicon obstructionists are still free to filibuster any and all legislation, all day long if they want.:roll:
Click to expand...

Ummm, I'm not drooling, just trying to hold and intelligent and analytical discussion. It don't make me no nevermind but I thank you for that clarification. I'm actually not pleased that our government is so divided and I don't agree with holding up ANY appointments unless it can be specifically demonstrated that the appointment itself is solely political and that judges and so forth can not be trusted to render impartial rulings.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I had just heard that the Republican leadership in the House had vowed that if any bill passes the Senate without a 60 vote majority, it will not be taken up by the House. To use Harry Reid's term, it will be "dead on arrival".
Click to expand...

So is Mr. Ewer correct and this applies only to appointments? Or is it everything?

.We are talking about non-Supreme Court presidential appointments only.
The Republican's are still free to filibuster any and all legislation, all day long if they want.
Click to expand...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Blocking three judicial apointeses to fill vacant seats on the d.c appellate court.
Click to expand...

When did these appointees leave committee? How long have they been waiting for a vote? The DC appellate court is unable to conduct business now or has been unable for a significant period of time?

I think Ocean makes a fair point. This does have a bit of a smell of wag-the-dog-ism.
 
MichaelJR said:
Thankfully.

Reid did this to himself. If you plan on undermining the very fabric of our nation by killing the system of checks and balances, be prepared to deal with the consequences of said actions. He had zero foresight, in typical leftist knee-jerk reaction he ran with a completely idiotic plan, and now he's going to have a solid 2 years of absolutely zero movement. Congrats harry, you've effectively neutered the administration and the senate. High five.

And....don't complain when GOP/Libertarians (which I do believe will come around in 2 years time) take the reins and utilize Harrys new rules. Two way street my friend.
Click to expand...
Calm down ... An unintentional loophole in senatorial procedural rules is hardly "the very fabric of our nation"... Originally the senate could bring an end to floor debate on any bill with a simple majority. Just like the house still does.
They are going back to that procedural rule on non-Supreme Court appointments only.
That's all.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Freedom from total obstruction is governance.
We aren't talking about the end of all opposition. Republicons can still debate a nominees qualifications and if their points are valid minds can still be changed.
Not many minds need to be changed to deny a nominee their appointment.
They can't just delay forever and for no reason.
A lot closer to democracy than to anarchistic obstruction IMHO.
Click to expand...

In my opinion you are equating "governing" with "ruling". If one party in a dispute is adamant about their position and the other party is adamant about theirs and no prospect of agreement can be seen on the horizon then both parties need to step back. The idea that one or the other should "win" is unrealistic.
 
specklebang said:
So is Mr. Ewer correct and this applies only to appointments? Or is it everything?
Click to expand...

At the current time, it was only for non-SC presidential nominations, but the suggestion was floated that Reid would now move to include "important" legislation - thus the threat from the House.
 
pbrauer said:
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
Click to expand...

At last democrats have gotten off their wimpy butts to take a stand.

It's about time.
 
ocean515 said:
No, spot on. I'm not surprised it doesn't register on your charts though.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
Reid has been threatening to do this for years - what was the breaking point now? What changed this week?
Click to expand...

Have you reached a point where you throw up your hands and say "Enough is enough?"

Well that's what Harry Reid says here:

 
Unitedwestand13 said:
This rule change was only applied to non-supreme court appointees.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
At the current time, it was only for non-SC presidential nominations, but the suggestion was floated that Reid would now move to include "important" legislation - thus the threat from the House.
Click to expand...

Ah, then we'll see. I really think it is time to proceed with these appointments anyway and if that is the limit, I can't get too excited about it.

They "float" 10 crazy ideas a day in Washington. So, time will tell.
 
pbrauer said:
Have you reached a point where you throw up your hands and say "Enough is enough?"

Well that's what Harry Reid says here:

Click to expand...



Of course I've reached that point. The radicals the President has been trying to insert in various posts and positions has drawn that reaction for quite some time.

As the President continues on his quest to turn the United States Government into one giant regulatory agency beholding to few except the chosen ones, I find myself regularly throwing my hands in the air and exclaiming enough.
 
Lutherf said:
In my opinion you are equating "governing" with "ruling". If one party in a dispute is adamant about their position and the other party is adamant about theirs and no prospect of agreement can be seen on the horizon then both parties need to step back. The idea that one or the other should "win" is unrealistic.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that the founders did not intend that minority parties should rule by obstruction either.
The constitution calls for majority rule in the Senate... not stalemate by minority obstruction.
Besides we are talking about non-SC appointees only. They can still have their conformation hearings and grilling before the cameras to make their case.
If their points are valid then only a very few minds need to be changed to deny an appointment.
No one is "ruling" by mob rule as the word implies.
Governance continues as planned.
 
specklebang said:
Ah, then we'll see. I really think it is time to proceed with these appointments anyway and if that is the limit, I can't get too excited about it.

They "float" 10 crazy ideas a day in Washington. So, time will tell.
Click to expand...

Well, one liberal I saw interviewed after the "nuclear option" was voted on said that even though they aren't going to get any of their agenda through at least if they can get all their liberal judges appointed then their agenda will be pushed through the courts. That's a great way to respect democracy. Fill the courts with liberal toadies uninterested in administering the law but making it.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course I've reached that point. The radicals the President has been trying to insert in various posts and positions has drawn that reaction for quite some time.

As the President continues on his quest to turn the United States Government into one giant regulatory agency beholding to few except the chosen ones, I find myself regularly throwing my hands in the air and exclaiming enough.
Click to expand...
Do you think the word "Govern" means do whatever you want?
 
pbrauer said:
Do you think the word "Govern" means do whatever you want?
Click to expand...

Well, hmmm. It sure seems the President thinks that.

But really, why don't you ask a rational question, if you're going to take the time to do so?
 
ocean515 said:
Of course I've reached that point. The radicals the President has been trying to insert in various posts and positions has drawn that reaction for quite some time.

As the President continues on his quest to turn the United States Government into one giant regulatory agency beholding to few except the chosen ones, I find myself regularly throwing my hands in the air and exclaiming enough.
Click to expand...
What "radicals" are you referring to?
Name one.
If the President were to truly nominate "radicals" ...there are enough moderate Democrats in the Senate to deny appointment of any true "radicals".
The president has only nominated qualified adept and often centrist people to the courts.
Unlike Bush who tried to appoint his personal legal adviser, who had never even served as a judge ...anywhere, to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That was one case where even Bush's staunchest republican supporters had to say, no George try again.
A Democratic filibuster was unnecessary when the nomination was that radically stupid.
 
Buck Ewer said:
What "radicals" are you referring to?
Name one.
If the President were to truly nominate "radicals" ...there are enough moderate Democrats in the Senate to deny appointment of any true "radicals".
The president has only nominated qualified adept and often centrist people to the courts.
Unlike Bush who tried to appoint his personal legal adviser, who had never even served as a judge ...anywhere, to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That was one case where even Bush's staunchest republican supporters had to say, no George try again.
A Democratic filibuster was unnecessary when the nomination was that radically stupid.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion. It was, interesting.
 
Buck Ewer said:
What "radicals" are you referring to?
Name one.
If the President were to truly nominate "radicals" ...there are enough moderate Democrats in the Senate to deny appointment of any true "radicals".
The president has only nominated qualified adept and often centrist people to the courts.
Unlike Bush who tried to appoint his personal legal adviser, who had never even served as a judge ...anywhere, to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That was one case where even Bush's staunchest republican supporters had to say, no George try again.
A Democratic filibuster was unnecessary when the nomination was that radically stupid.
Click to expand...

Pick virtually any name from his cabinet for nominated radicals and it's absolute BS that so-called moderate dems would deny any party appointee.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, one liberal I saw interviewed after the "nuclear option" was voted on said that even though they aren't going to get any of their agenda through at least if they can get all their liberal judges appointed then their agenda will be pushed through the courts. That's a great way to respect democracy. Fill the courts with liberal toadies uninterested in administering the law but making it.
Click to expand...

What is the alternative? Wait until a Republican is elected and then push Conservative Toadies into the courts? Are all judges "toadies"? No free thinkers? No constitutional guidelines?

If you listen to extremists from either party, you will give up all hope for America. But look, we're still standing after ll this time. Things balance out in due course.

Meritocracy - we sure could use some.
 
I think it's a good idea and I hope they extend it to all senate votes in the future. If a supermajority of 60 was intended to be required to approve everything the senate did, the constitution would have been written that way.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I'm sure that the founders did not intend that minority parties should rule by obstruction either.
The constitution calls for majority rule in the Senate... not stalemate by minority obstruction.
Besides we are talking about non-SC appointees only. They can still have their conformation hearings and grilling before the cameras to make their case.
If their points are valid then only a very few minds need to be changed to deny an appointment.
No one is "ruling" by mob rule as the word implies.
Governance continues as planned.
Click to expand...

Again, what you're talking about is forcing a "win" where no win could otherwise exist. Some times in life nobody wins and when that happens everyone needs to go back and reevaluate how they can address the disagreement.

Look at it this way:
You've got an intersection in town where accidents are more frequent than at other intersections. Half of the city council wants to put in a roundabout which will cost $5 Million and the other half of the council wants to put in speed cameras to raise revenues and serve as an additional deterrent to blowing the light. The roundabout people are opposed to the cameras because they believe it's a violation of privacy and the camera people are opposed to the roundabout because of the cost. Nobody is budging on their position.

The options are:
1. Force a decision by "going nuclear"
2. Never make a decision
3. Go back to the drawing board and see if there is another solution

If they use option #1 that's setting up more pissing contests in the future. If they choose option #2 then more accidents happen and people die. But if they choose option #3 maybe they can come up with another idea such as extending the yellow light or increasing police presence at that intersection.
 
pbrauer said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, its about time he stopped whining and finally did something. And so long as the Democrats don't tyranize the minority by stopping legitimate debate, I have no problem with it. HOWEVER, I think confirmation of nominees should require a supermajority, not simple majorities. If the two parties can not agree on something, it should not pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom