• 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

To the victor, should have gone the spolis..About 5 years late for Mr. Obama..
So should Obama be able to pick who he wants since he is POTUS or just let 93 judgeships remain vacant??
specklebang said:
I can answer that what with all my afternoon research. He can appoint judges to courts that rule on EPA issues. Once the openings are filled with left-sympathetic judges, the EPA will clamp down on power plants. Sure, you need congress to pass certain legislation but the balance of power has shifted a great deal. Same thing for FED appointees. Obama can pick the QE sympathizers instead of QE naysayers.
Click to expand...
So if Obama cannot pick members of the EPA and FED, what do you suggest..
Should we just nullify the 2012 elections as Euros do and call new elections until the GOP wins??
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
pero, can you send me a private message explaining what crisis would the debt cause? i see all these posts about the debt being the worst thing since the plague,
and i get frustrated why the debts seems to matter more then anything else, can you explain it to me because i don't understand what is the doomsday scenario everyone is screaming about.

on the subject of breaking the senate rules, I think that the old system of "gentlemans agreements" on the use of the fillibuster has become impossible to sustain in this era of winner take all politics.
Click to expand...

Debts only matter if and when they matter. If there is some tipping point where the debt exceeds its plausible value, the currency would suffer. But if we go down, so does everybody else. So nobody wants to tip over the house of cards. So far, so good. It just seems wrong but perception is reality (they say).
 
NIMBY said:
So should Obama be able to pick who he wants since he is POTUS or not??
Should we have just let 93 judgeships have remained vacant??

So if Obama cannot pick members of the EPA and FED, what do you suggest..
Should we just nullify the 2012 elections as Euros do and call new elections until the GOP wins??
Click to expand...

You know, you really ae being silly. You read all sorts of things into the most basic answer, feeling like you must defend and attack.

I said " he can appoint judges to courts that rule on EPA issues. Once the openings are filled with left-sympathetic judges, the EPA will clamp down on power plants. Sure, you need congress to pass certain legislation but the balance of power has shifted a great deal. Same thing for FED appointees. Obama can pick the QE sympathizers instead of QE naysayers.

How do you get invalidating the elections out of that? It's sheer information - not a political position.
 
My apologies for jumping to extremes,
but I'm caught up in the wave of defending Obama from what I consider relentless attacks on you name it--24/7/365/5..

I am surprised Reid did it now also..
It is now obvious he had it planned, as soon as they filibustered the third appointee to the D.C. Court of Appeals..

It was action the Senate rarely sees, every 40-years or so..
I smirked at the GOP clerk when she put on her glasses and glanced at Reid, knowing this was a BFD .

specklebang said:
You know, you really ae being silly. You read all sorts of things into the most basic answer, feeling like you must defend and attack.

I said " he can appoint judges to courts that rule on EPA issues. Once the openings are filled with left-sympathetic judges, the EPA will clamp down on power plants. Sure, you need congress to pass certain legislation but the balance of power has shifted a great deal. Same thing for FED appointees. Obama can pick the QE sympathizers instead of QE naysayers.

How do you get invalidating the elections out of that? It's sheer information - not a political position.
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
I was referring to anyone making those threats. They will be accused of hipocrisy when they make good.
Click to expand...

Well, who cares? And how is it hypocritical to say "we'll use it against you" then actually do it? How is that hypocrisy?
 
specklebang said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you - I simply point out the blatancy of the Democrat attempt to flood the courts with liberals who will do their legislative bidding for them. Puts the lie to all the noble talk about competent, qualified, justices being held up and Republicans just being obstructionists. If that's the criteria for liberal judges, no wonder they're being filibustered.

As for liberal toadies vs. conservative toadies on the courts - most conservatives will tell you that there isn't a single liberal toady who ever rules with a conservative bent but there are dozens of conservative examples, some now on the Supreme Court, who make a habit of voting with the liberals, to the great disappointment of conservatives, because they follow the law or defer to the legislative branch.
 
There must be a reason that Reid took the nuclear option at this time. Could it be all the lawsuits they might be expecting over Obamacare, and he needs to quickly pack the court with his cronies.
 
Since republicans have already proven they're are willing to shut down the government for ideological reasons and to obstruct democracy, is there any doubt that Republicans wouldn't have changed the fillabuster rules if they controled the senate? The dems did the right thing.

McConnell made a huge miscalculation in not letting the 3 federal judge appointments come to a vote. He didn't think Reid would change the filabuster rule, but after years of obstruction, not to mention the recent attempt to eliminate the three vacant seats, he forced the democrats hand and now instead of just 3 judge appointments....there will be 97 because of the long backlog of obstructed nominations. LOL

It will be a very long time before Republicans can tilt the judiciary in their favor now.
 
Last edited:
American said:
There must be a reason that Reid took the nuclear option at this time. Could it be all the lawsuits they might be expecting over Obamacare, and he needs to quickly pack the court with his cronies.
Click to expand...

If Reid hadn't changed the rules, the republicans would have if and when they controled the senate.
 
Moot said:
If Reid hadn't changed the rules, the republicans would have if and when they controled the senate.
Click to expand...

Oh you can predict the future now. :roll:
 
American said:
Oh you can predict the future now. :roll:
Click to expand...

Based on the republicans willingness to actually shut down the government over a law they didn't like....YES.
 
American said:
There must be a reason that Reid took the nuclear option at this time.
Click to expand...
 Could it be all the lawsuits they might be expecting over Obamacare, and he needs to quickly pack the court with his cronies.
Click to expand...




I believe that the reason for this change is that enough Democrats finally realized that it was time to start doing what the American people sent them to Washington, D.C. to do

Reid didn't make the decision to do this by himself.
 
clownboy said:
Lots of ways. Remember that whole eternal vigilence thing? When the people sleep through a century or so we end up with a government that only vaguely resembles the Constitution and a country that is ruled more than it is free.
Click to expand...

I do remember: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
 
Moot said:
Based on the republicans willingness to actually shut down the government over a law they didn't like....YES.
Click to expand...

It wasn't done during the Bush Administrations when Democrats filibustered so you...

:failpail:
 
shrubnose said:
I believe that the reason for this change is that enough Democrats finally realized that it was time to start doing what the American people sent them to Washington, D.C. to do

Reid didn't make the decision to do this by himself.
Click to expand...

Reid is the biggest obstructionist in Congress, he hasn't passed a budget in years.
 
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...

Great. That this even had to be voted on is the true travesty. A simple majority is all that should be needed. If one doesn't like it, work to elect your majority. The constitution, not floor rules, should run the voting practices of the House and Senate.
 
SayMyName said:
Great. That this even had to be voted on is the true travesty. A simple majority is all that should be needed. If one doesn't like it, work to elect your majority. The constitution, not floor rules, should run the voting practices of the House and Senate.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added by me.

Then you may want to read the Constitution again. Specifically Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Reid is the biggest obstructionist in Congress, he hasn't passed a budget in years.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Believe whatever you want to believe.

The GOP made this happen with its unprecedented obstructionism based solely on politics.

Any GOP Senators who can't deal with this should just retire, go home and stay there.

If the GOP ever gets control of the Senate again, it can always change this to make it easier for the Democrats to block their agenda.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
 
Moot said:
Since republicans have already proven they're are willing to shut down the government for ideological reasons and to obstruct democracy, is there any doubt that Republicans wouldn't have changed the fillabuster rules if they controled the senate? The dems did the right thing.

McConnell made a huge miscalculation in not letting the 3 federal judge appointments come to a vote. He didn't think Reid would change the filabuster rule, but after years of obstruction, not to mention the recent attempt to eliminate the three vacant seats, he forced the democrats hand and now instead of just 3 judge appointments....there will be 97 because of the long backlog of obstructed nominations. LOL

It will be a very long time before Republicans can tilt the judiciary in their favor now.
Click to expand...

Looks like you and I watched the same episode of Rachel Maddow last night. I watched to see what her spin would be, not to repeat it here as you just did.
 
mac said:
Well, who cares? And how is it hypocritical to say "we'll use it against you" then actually do it? How is that hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Because theyre implying that democrats using it are bad. If they then use it, they are also bad. Hipocrasy by definition. By the way Mitch McConnel made the same threat yesterday.
 
American said:
It wasn't done during the Bush Administrations when Democrats filibustered so you...

failpail:
Click to expand...

FAIL ^^^
I wasn't comparing to the Bush administration. The tea party take over of the GOP and their attempt to nullify Obama's presidency by shutting down the government and the unprecedented filibustering of all of his judicial appointments is all the evidence I need to know they wouldn't hesitate to change the filibuster rule if the shoe was on the other foot.
 
American said:
Reid is the biggest obstructionist in Congress, he hasn't passed a budget in years.
Click to expand...

The senate passed a budget this year.
 
justabubba said:
it's academic now as the genie cannot be put back in the bottle
but i prefer a more deliberative process, where more than a simple majority is required to effect major measures
when a greater consensus is required, there is more likely going to be more compromise involved to reach it. the passed measures are going to be more moderate and less extreme than when a lesser number is required to move legislation/approve nominees. so, my prediction is this move will allow government to operate faster, but also in a way which allows those that are more extreme to prevail. and if there is anything we do not need in government today is more extremists - on both sides of the aisle
Click to expand...

Amen and Amen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom