• 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

Perotista said:
Get back with me if the republicans win the senate next year and perhaps the white house in 2016 and just watch how many times this procedure is used by them to get everything they want passed and repealed. You must have a lot of trust in the republicans. The tooth paste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back. The senate rules state it take 67 votes to change them, but Reid used a loophole. That little loop hole will grow pretty darn big in the future. Big enough to drive a train through and then it will keep expanding.
Click to expand...

GEORGE WILL: There's no limiting principle in the principle that they're invoking, that is majorities should rule all the time. What this means is if in the spring of 2017 there is a Republican president, which there could be, the Republicans still hold the House and they have 51 Senators, they can repeal Obamacare with 51 votes. And I'm not sure the people who did this today have thought this through.
George Will: New Filibuster Rules Could Lead To Repeal Of Obamacare
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

Exactly right.

While Obama and the democrats are overjoyed to have the ability to pack the DC appeals court with their pro-ObamaCare stateist judges (it's been reported that they are the ones that will hear all the cases regarding ObamaCare regulation interpretation) me thinks that they just screwed ObamaCare into an earlier repeal than if they hadn't.

Are they, and many others that support this law, still of the opinion that everyone'll love it and the repeal movement will lose all traction? I'm kinda doubting that. I see it as more likely to be a growing snowball rolling down hill and constantly getting bigger.

A great political strategist he's not, in spite of the myths that say he is. This would appear to be just another example that he's not.

Obama: The Myth of the Master Strategist | National Review Online
 
eohrnberger said:
(Emphasis mine)

Exactly right.

While Obama and the democrats are overjoyed to have the ability to pack the DC appeals court with their pro-ObamaCare stateist judges (it's been reported that they are the ones that will hear all the cases regarding ObamaCare regulation interpretation) me thinks that they just screwed ObamaCare into an earlier repeal than if they hadn't.

Are they, and many others that support this law, still of the opinion that everyone'll love it and the repeal movement will lose all traction? I'm kinda doubting that. I see it as more likely to be a growing snowball rolling down hill and constantly getting bigger.

A great political strategist he's not, in spite of the myths that say he is. This would appear to be just another example that he's not.

Obama: The Myth of the Master Strategist | National Review Online
Click to expand...


a bogus threat from a typically overstated george will
by then Obamacare will be as 'easy' to repeal as a social security
we already see that the GOP has nothing to offer to replace it
don't think they intend to remove access to newly acquired healthcare from the vast numbers of its low information base
 
justabubba said:
a bogus threat from a typically overstated george will
by then Obamacare will be as 'easy' to repeal as a social security
we already see that the GOP has nothing to offer to replace it
don't think they intend to remove access to newly acquired healthcare from the vast numbers of its low information base
Click to expand...

Vast numbers of newly acquired healthcare? Last I heard the vast numbers was medicare and medicaid signups, and not members that would contribute to the financial viability of Obamacare.

No plan? Not quite.
H.R. 3121. It's only been around since September
http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_american_health_care_reform_act.pdf
 
I would prefer some level of coperation between the MS party; there isn't any. Hyperpartisanship means we are in constant gridlock mode.

This is a political move for the DC Court of Appeals, but then EVERYTHING -i mean literally EVERYTHING in DC is politicized.

The only way out is a coaltion type government (3rd party), but Americans "cling" to the duopoly.

It's a mess, there isn't any really good answer: impasse isn't helpful, nor is simple majority 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...

Not doing anything is biting them.

Sorry, but the Cons abused the right. When you don't respect your rights, you tend to lose them. That said, I suggest the Cons wanted this to happen. They could have prevented it.
 
Perotista said:
How can you say wrong - the precedence has been set.
Click to expand...
Because filibusters on legislation have not been removed.


In the future any senate majority can now use this option to end any filibuster either on SCOTUS nominees or to pass or repeal any legislation.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The rule changes do not affect either Supreme Court nominations or legislation.

Besides, as far as I know only one SCOTUS nominee has ever been delayed by a filibuster -- Fortas in 1968. In fact, Republicans tried to say "it wasn't a real filibuster." (PolitiFact | Toobin says a Supreme Court nominee has never been filibustered successfully)


If something is used once, in this case just for presidential appointments and nothing else, it can and will be used again and again.
Click to expand...
It is far from clear they would get a majority vote for a removal of all filibusters.

Even if they did, that would ultimately be a good thing. The Senate was never designed to require a supermajority to pass legislation or to confirm appointments -- and that is exactly what it has become.


....according to the news this morning I have read where several Republicans already say their will use this precedence, this same procedure used by senator Reid if they win the white house in 2016
Click to expand...
Hahahaha ;)

Err, sorry. Anyway, many of the senators who voted to change the rules know what they're doing, and would be glad to get rid of an abused policy -- even if that means some legislation doesn't go their way.

Plus, it wasn't that long ago that it was conservatives who wanted to get rid of the filibuster: FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America


This thing will escalate, mark my word.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope so. It's a procedure that has gone from being the exception to the rule, and it's preventing the government from doing its job.

A lot more work needs to be done to get the government back on track, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
 
buck said:
Republicans have already stated once they take back the senate, they will be adding SC judges to the list of appointments that can't be filibustered. Democrats will completly change their position on this move once that happens.
Click to expand...

That was Senator Grassley who stated that. There was another senator this morning I heard on the radio that said all the republicans want to do now is win back the senate in 2014 and take the presidency in 2016 and the ACA is history. It will take only 51 votes in the senate to repeal it.
 
Perotista said:
That was Senator Grassley who stated that. There was another senator this morning I heard on the radio that said all the republicans want to do now is win back the senate in 2014 and take the presidency in 2016 and the ACA is history. It will take only 51 votes in the senate to repeal it.
Click to expand...
The GOP won't win the Senate or the Presidency so...ain't gonna happen. The GOP will be lucky to keep 40 Senate Seats in '14 is my opinion.
 
Perotista said:
Get back with me if the republicans win the senate next year and perhaps the white house in 2016 and just watch how many times this procedure is used by them to get everything they want passed and repealed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's pretty much how it's supposed to work.

Part of living in a representative democracy is accepting that sometimes, the votes will not go your way.


You must have a lot of trust in the republicans. The tooth paste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back. The senate rules state it take 67 votes to change them, but Reid used a loophole. That little loop hole will grow pretty darn big in the future. Big enough to drive a train through and then it will keep expanding.
Click to expand...
What you fail to recognize is that it is the filibuster rules that are the "loophole" here, that have expanded beyond control.

It is NOT a good thing for the minority to be able to hinder the entire federal government. The system wasn't designed that way, and since we do not use a parliamentary system, it has no business being part of government.

In addition, the frequency of filibusters has gone off the charts in the last 5-10 years. I don't care if it is Democrats or Republicans stopping nominees out of political spite, neither of them should be allowed to do so. Nominees should not be subject to secret holds and threats of filibusters, they should get a straight up-or-down vote. As, really, should all legislation in the Senate.
 
eohrnberger said:
(Emphasis mine)

Exactly right.

While Obama and the democrats are overjoyed to have the ability to pack the DC appeals court with their pro-ObamaCare stateist judges (it's been reported that they are the ones that will hear all the cases regarding ObamaCare regulation interpretation) me thinks that they just screwed ObamaCare into an earlier repeal than if they hadn't.

Are they, and many others that support this law, still of the opinion that everyone'll love it and the repeal movement will lose all traction? I'm kinda doubting that. I see it as more likely to be a growing snowball rolling down hill and constantly getting bigger.

A great political strategist he's not, in spite of the myths that say he is. This would appear to be just another example that he's not.

Obama: The Myth of the Master Strategist | National Review Online
Click to expand...

I just heard that President Obama pushed back the date on the employer mandates past the election of next year in hopes that Obamacare will just go away as a campaign issue. It may or may not. But why worry about it anymore. Just concentrate on winning back the senate next year, then get a Republican in the White House come 2016 and it is gone. I am positive the GOP will use the Senator Harry Reid option on this.

So I don't care one iota about the ACA anymore. Just that the Republicans win the senate next year and take the White House in 2016, viola, via the Senator Harry Reid option, trash it. Perhaps they get use the Senator Harry Reid Option to get rid of the EPA and the Department of Energy also. How about using the Senator Harry Reid Option to privatize Social Security?

My advice to the Republicans would be not to worry about legislation or anything else, just concentrate on winning back the senate next year and the presidency in 2016. The Senator Harry Reid Option will take care of anything else the Democrat get done. My friend, it is all on the table if you have total control of the House, Senate and White House. 218 representatives, 50 senators plus the VP and the the president, you now become absolute ruler of the U.S. and no one can stop you from doing anything, pushing you complete political agenda. Thank You Much, Senator Harry Reid.
 
Moot said:
I read that, too....


As president, Obama has a right to fill those empty seats just as much as a republican president would. Do you doubt for a minute that the GOP wouldn't if they could?
Click to expand...
Of course the Reps would try to pack the court. Wouldn't make it right with me either. Also, the Congress decides how many seats are on any given court.

One of the most interesting items in our history, was when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court by getting the Congress to add seats that he could fill and get his New Deal approved by the SCOTUS if parts of it were challenged in the courts. Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Moot said:
I suppose. But if there are three vacant seats then that suggests the court hasn't always been balanced and if has to lean I would prefer it to lean left....especially given the fact that SCOTUS leans to the right There's the balance.
Click to expand...
I would prefer it be balanced. The SCOTUS does lean right, but not that far. The Chief Justice is probably only one of two (Kennedy the other) that are centrally located in the realm of ideology. But again, the number of seats on the court isn't a hard written in stone number. Just because a seat is open, it doesn't have to be filled. If the Senate reduced the number of seats, there would be no guarantee that the Republicans could increase the number at a later date.


Moot said:
I hope they bring the old style of filibuster back.....
Click to expand...
That would be great, and make good TV as well.


Moot said:
You're a good poster and make some good points, Beau. It's a pleasure talking to you. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Moot. I appreciate that. I've enjoyed discussing this with you as well.
 
As far as I'm concerned, this is a bad move by the democrats. It's a blatant attack on the what the framers of this country intended, it is a move towards totalitarian government, and keeping the opposition down. I hear Obama has since nominated 30 individuals, doubtless these people would never have past the confirmation process.

Of course, whenever the republican gain control, the chances of which have just been greatly increased, they will have free reign to do as they please. At least they'll only need 51 votes to pass anything they want, since such a drastic change in the rules is now okay.

Ironic, it was these left wing statists that called it the "Nuclear Option" because they were sooo against doing it. What a bunch of corrupt hypocrites.
 
NIMBY said:
When Sen. McConnell quipped to have an up or down vote in 2005, DEMs fixed the problem in 2013..
Dems did not filibuster Alito or Thomas to death, though Kerry tried on Alito but no filibuster vote given..
Alito approved 58-42..Thomas approved 52-48, an insult as the lowest ever..
Sen. Grassley threatened a Scalia on Dems, who was confirmed 98-0..My how times have changed..
Imagine if Obama gets another SCOTUS Justice..All Hell will break loose .
Click to expand...

Except if you've been following along you'd know this dem rule change does not apply to SCOTUS nominations or to legislation. It's strictly centered around non-SCOTUS judicial appointments.
 
NIMBY said:
And you are correct to say a Majority Leader Cruz in the future will launch his own nuke, as you would say, on legislation or a SCOTUS Justice..
It doesn't matter to me now, since the Senate was frozen in an "Aaron Burr" filibuster on everything..
If Repubs want to change rules back to the 67 votes to raise taxes or whatever, so be it..
I don't see a President Christie allowing it..Frankly, I wish we could fast-forward three years from now .
Click to expand...

Once again, read up on the issue, you're got it worng. And the POTUS doesn't have anything to do with senate rules, nor does he have any say in the matter.
 
clownboy said:
Except if you've been following along you'd know this dem rule change does not apply to SCOTUS nominations or to legislation. It's strictly centered around non-SCOTUS judicial appointments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what they are saying right now, well at least most of them. It was reported this morning that one of the Democrats was already saying that they'd use the nuclear option to appoint supreme court justices (just can't remember which one), and I think that's what Obama is going to end up doing.
 
jonny5 said:
Cause your so unbiased.
Click to expand...
Mostly just see the Base of the GOP chasing away what they call RINOs and as a result losing the votes of Gays, Immigrants, Blacks, and Women. So, pray tell. How do you see them winning?
 
calamity said:
Mostly just see the Base of the GOP chasing away what they call RINOs and as a result losing the votes of Gays, Immigrants, Blacks, and Women. So, pray tell. How do you see them winning?
Click to expand...

Obamacare.
 
jonny5 said:
Obamacare.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I doubt gays, immigrants, blacks, women and the young will be changing their votes over to the GOP simply because Obamacare hit a few snags.
 
justabubba said:
a bogus threat from a typically overstated george will
by then Obamacare will be as 'easy' to repeal as a social security
we already see that the GOP has nothing to offer to replace it
don't think they intend to remove access to newly acquired healthcare from the vast numbers of its low information base
Click to expand...

It will be as easy to repeal as the Medicare expansion in 1989.

And on the topic of the thread, here is the NYT opinion on the 'nuclear option' in the narrow scope it was applied, back in 2005
A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, that's what they are saying right now, well at least most of them. It was reported this morning that one of the Democrats was already saying that they'd use the nuclear option to appoint supreme court justices (just can't remember which one), and I think that's what Obama is going to end up doing.
Click to expand...

Well then they better get a move on and have one of their operatives take out Ginzberg, because she's not budging. If they try that before an election they'll lose everything. The public historically doesn't like it when they mess with the court that way. Even when FDR was loved he heard extreme negative from the public when he threatened to pack the court. It was the only thing that made him back down.
 
calamity said:
:lol:

I doubt gays, immigrants, blacks, women and the young will be changing their votes over to the GOP simply because Obamacare hit a few snags.
Click to expand...

I never understood why people take individuals, wrap them up in a single attribute, and toss them around like tools. Last time I checked, your skin color, time in this country, sexual orientation,age, or gender doesn't plays a role in intelligence and cognitive thinking.

If any individual feels they are negatively affected by Obamacare( cancelled policy, increased premiums, increased deductions, increased copays, decreased choice in doctors, etc ), that will be on their mind when they vote.
 
calamity said:
:lol:

I doubt gays, immigrants, blacks, women and the young will be changing their votes over to the GOP simply because Obamacare hit a few snags.
Click to expand...

Gays and blacks were already in the hip pocket of the dems. But women? You betcha Obamacare is going to be a big factor with them. Bye, bye dem senate.
 
Samhain said:
I never understood why people take individuals, wrap them up in a single attribute, and toss them around like tools. Last time I checked, your skin color, time in this country, sexual orientation,age, or gender doesn't plays a role in intelligence and cognitive thinking.

If any individual feels they are negatively affected by Obamacare( cancelled policy, increased premiums, increased deductions, increased copays, decreased choice in doctors, etc ), that will be on their mind when they vote.
Click to expand...

yes, for most their vote will be based in self interest
and for the masses, especially the minority populations, do you really believe the GOP offers them a better alternative than the democrats? only an amazing republican presidential candidate could do that. and i do not see that person on our political horizon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom