• 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

jmotivator said:
Again, you can keep throwing out this lie but it doesn't make it true. The increase in "filibuster" cloture votes (there have been no actual filibusters during Obama's presidency) is ONLY because of Harry Reid's insane habit of calling for a cloture vote on everything.
Click to expand...
His "insane" habit is because the Republicans are categorically refusing to accept the basic function of a President to fill nominations.


Care to guess what percentage of Bush nominees made it through the Senate in that Senate session? 15%. FIFTEEN PERCENT.
Click to expand...
91% of Bush's judicial nominees were approved by the Senate. Obama? 76%.

Bush's appointees had to wait 43 days on average for a confirmation vote. Obama? 107.

The number of judicial vacancies is increasing. Several agency nominations, such as the CPA and ATF, have been opposed not because time was needed to evaluate the nominees, but out of sheer political opposition to those agencies.


And let's face it: The filibuster, when sparingly used, is fine. Its use has gone completely off the rails, and its elimination is well overdue. Let's hope this keeps up, and they get rid of it (or at least, permanently revert to talking filibusters) in the near future.
 
Perotista said:
It is repealable. In fact if and this is a big if, if it looks like the 7 democratic senators from red states like they will lose their seats, it does now for 4 of them. They will join a couple of other conservative democrats like Manchin calling for it repeal early next year to mid summer. When it comes to politicians getting re-elected and self preservation is number one. Me, I will just wait and see what happens. Rumors are already afloat about this.
Click to expand...

You can not simply repeal it.... and, even if your scenario should happen, it would not be repealed.

Rarely is there intelligence behind political rumor. Most "rumors" are someone's ill-conceived wishful thinking.
 
Holy crap! You mean the Senate can now approve Presidential appointments with a majority vote?? Oh, the humanity!!!:lamo
 
Perotista said:
What most people don't realize the filibuster added a bit of stability to our system. It prevented this wild swings.
Click to expand...
It most certainly has not added "stability" to the system.

What it has done is trashed a legislature that was supposed to function based on simple majorities, and given an obstructionist minority the ability to grind huge swaths of government to a halt. Judicial vacancies aren't getting filled; departments aren't getting permanent heads, purely out of political spite. The ATF didn't have a director for seven years. How is that "stability?"


Come 2017, if the GOP wins the white house and take control of the the senate, they can repeal Obamacare by just 51 votes and there is nothing the Democrats can do about it but offer the Republican "CONGRATULATIONS." After all it was the Democrats that let this monster loose.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then why aren't Republicans licking their chops over this?
 
Kobie said:
You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

And you're here to proclaim your ignorance on the issue. No need. Simply put the filibuster as it has become requires the majority party to at least convince some of the minority party to vote their way. This usually means compromise. This is a good thing in our current highly stratified government. That's gone now that Harry went nuclear and where it may benefit his short term goals, it destroys any hope of compromise between the parties in the future. If you have the majority it's now my way or the highway.
 
upsideguy said:
You can not simply repeal it.... and, even if your scenario should happen, it would not be repealed.

Rarely is there intelligence behind political rumor. Most "rumors" are someone's ill-conceived wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Okay.............Time will tell.
 
clownboy said:
And you're here to proclaim your ignorance on the issue. No need. Simply put the filibuster as it has become requires the majority party to at least convince some of the minority party to vote their way. This usually means compromise. This is a good thing in our current highly stratified government. That's gone now that Harry went nuclear and where it may benefit his short term goals, it destroys any hope of compromise between the parties in the future. If you have the majority it's now my way or the highway.
Click to expand...

If the GOP hadn't abused the filibuster, this wouldn't have happened.
 
Visbek said:
It most certainly has not added "stability" to the system.

What it has done is trashed a legislature that was supposed to function based on simple majorities, and given an obstructionist minority the ability to grind huge swaths of government to a halt. Judicial vacancies aren't getting filled; departments aren't getting permanent heads, purely out of political spite. The ATF didn't have a director for seven years. How is that "stability?"



If that's the case, then why aren't Republicans licking their chops over this?
Click to expand...

They should be. But it has to be one step at a time. First win the senate in 2014, then win the presidency in 2016. I think this will be long remembered.
 
clownboy said:
Because of the real motive for this - to pack the DC court while they still have the majority. That can't be changed later on.
Click to expand...

I always hate these stupid games. Republicans are going to act all outraged when we all know they'd pack the court if they had the chance. Just like Democrats a few years ago were outraged at the thought of a rules change, and now they're doing it.
 
Kobie said:
If the GOP hadn't abused the filibuster, this wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. The dems "abused" the filibuster when they had a close minority (by that I mean where the majority didn't have a filibuster proof majority). As has been shown, Reid calls cloture even when there is no hint of filibuster, allowing dem syncophants to make claims such as you are making. How many actual filibusters have there been in this congressional session?
 
MMC said:
Pretty much says it all[/COLOR].....and Reid's thinking. No mistaking where he stands now.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think Rush Limbaugh said it better:

"The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes. But because they're invoking the filibuster, which, you know, the Senate can make up its own rules but not when they impose on the Constitution and not when they impose on the legislative branch. Separation of powers here. But if nobody stops them, they're going to keep getting away with it. It's up to the Senate Republicans to stop them."​


Hannity also had a good point:

"There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."​


Rich Lowry, in the NRO, didn't mind it either:

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should take away their ability to mount unprecedented judicial filibusters through the so-called nuclear option, then sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition."​


And Karl Rove demanded an up-or-down vote for nominees:

"We believe that fairness means these people deserve an up-or-down vote. The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair."​


Aaaaand for good measure, Bill Kristol:

"That's the constitutional underpinning of our history, which is not to filibuster presidential nominees. The president has the duty to fill those jobs. Congress should advise and consent, or not advise -- not consent. "​


And of course, I don't hear anyone saying the House should institute new rules introducing filibusters, or requiring supermajorities.

The bottom line is that FILIBUSTERS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY; and both Democrats and Republicans have flipped their positions since 2005. If the Democrats are doing this "purely" for advantage, then the Republicans -- who wanted to nuke the filibuster in 2005 -- are also opposing it as a knee-jerk partisan reaction.
 
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...

Hypocrisy is waist deep on both sides in this matter. Dems will reap immediate gains and Repubs will complain. At some future date Repubs will reap gains and Dems will complain. That just makes our politics cruder but it can be borne. The real problem is that we will get a more overtly political judiciary, and that will lead, over time, to less respect for the laws of our great Republic.:peace
 
rocket88 said:
I always hate these stupid games. Republicans are going to act all outraged when we all know they'd pack the court if they had the chance. Just like Democrats a few years ago were outraged at the thought of a rules change, and now they're doing it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you (especially about the court packing) except for the fact that the republicans could have done this when they had the close majority, knew about the option and did not take it.
 
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...

Here it comes...... Harkin calls for more rule changes | TheHill
 
clownboy said:
And you're here to proclaim your ignorance on the issue. No need. Simply put the filibuster as it has become requires the majority party to at least convince some of the minority party to vote their way. This usually means compromise. This is a good thing in our current highly stratified government. That's gone now that Harry went nuclear and where it may benefit his short term goals, it destroys any hope of compromise between the parties in the future. If you have the majority it's now my way or the highway.
Click to expand...

Sad to say, the concept of compromise is a thing of the past. Neither party has any interest in meeting in the middle unless they've gotten paid off directly or indirectly. So, the things they "compromise" on are generally authorizing the purchase of $8000 toilet seats and nothing much else.

Not only that, but the blame game is too easy to play now. For example, when a Democrat weeps about the Iraq war or the Patriot Act, fingers point in every direction.

I think I like this new approach. Right now, it's the Democrats in charge. Let them have their way. Lets see how smart (or dumb) they are. Then, when the time comes to vote, the "American People" (don't you hate that phrase?) will have a much more clear cut way of deciding what they want.

Obamacare. Bring it on! By the next election this plan will be an Eagle or an Albatross. Lets just find out. What's the worst that can happen? Some people won't have insurance they like, some will be singing hallelujah. It's just for a year - then we will know what we are voting for.

Maybe we'll see some incentive to make these grandiose plans actually work (or fail). Maybe the rulers can put more effort into their responsibilities between their cocaine purchases. Within 3 years, we'll all be on one side or the other instead of the continuing incompetence we've suffered for 13 years.

Now, I'm (told) the design of the framers was to make change difficult. In principle, that sounds rational. But in the modern world, this doesn't work well at all.

This is my opinion. It's MY way or the HIGHWAY.:roll:
 
specklebang said:
Sad to say, the concept of compromise is a thing of the past. Neither party has any interest in meeting in the middle unless they've gotten paid off directly or indirectly. So, the things they "compromise" on are generally authorizing the purchase of $8000 toilet seats and nothing much else.

Not only that, but the blame game is too easy to play now. For example, when a Democrat weeps about the Iraq war or the Patriot Act, fingers point in every direction.

I think I like this new approach. Right now, it's the Democrats in charge. Let them have their way. Lets see how smart (or dumb) they are. Then, when the time comes to vote, the "American People" (don't you hate that phrase?) will have a much more clear cut way of deciding what they want.

Obamacare. Bring it on! By the next election this plan will be an Eagle or an Albatross. Lets just find out. What's the worst that can happen? Some people won't have insurance they like, some will be singing hallelujah. It's just for a year - then we will know what we are voting for.

Maybe we'll see some incentive to make these grandiose plans actually work (or fail). Maybe the rulers can put more effort into their responsibilities between their cocaine purchases. Within 3 years, we'll all be on one side or the other instead of the continuing incompetence we've suffered for 13 years.

Now, I'm (told) the design of the framers was to make change difficult. In principle, that sounds rational. But in the modern world, this doesn't work well at all.

This is my opinion. It's MY way or the HIGHWAY.:roll:
Click to expand...

There's quite a lot I agree with there. However, some changes can't just be rolled back but rather entrench power. In particular judicial appointments. We're stuck with those yahoos until they die or get caught with a live boy or dead girl.
 
specklebang said:
Sad to say, the concept of compromise is a thing of the past. Neither party has any interest in meeting in the middle unless they've gotten paid off directly or indirectly. So, the things they "compromise" on are generally authorizing the purchase of $8000 toilet seats and nothing much else.

Not only that, but the blame game is too easy to play now. For example, when a Democrat weeps about the Iraq war or the Patriot Act, fingers point in every direction.

I think I like this new approach. Right now, it's the Democrats in charge. Let them have their way. Lets see how smart (or dumb) they are. Then, when the time comes to vote, the "American People" (don't you hate that phrase?) will have a much more clear cut way of deciding what they want.

Obamacare. Bring it on! By the next election this plan will be an Eagle or an Albatross. Lets just find out. What's the worst that can happen? Some people won't have insurance they like, some will be singing hallelujah. It's just for a year - then we will know what we are voting for.

Maybe we'll see some incentive to make these grandiose plans actually work (or fail). Maybe the rulers can put more effort into their responsibilities between their cocaine purchases. Within 3 years, we'll all be on one side or the other instead of the continuing incompetence we've suffered for 13 years.

Now, I'm (told) the design of the framers was to make change difficult. In principle, that sounds rational. But in the modern world, this doesn't work well at all.

This is my opinion. It's MY way or the HIGHWAY.:roll:
Click to expand...

I'm headed down the highway, how we doing tonight. Quite a lot to think about as to what you said. I think you had some good points, but I am an old foggie who doesn't care for that much change. At least all at once.
 
Jack Hays said:
Hypocrisy is waist deep on both sides in this matter. Dems will reap immediate gains and Repubs will complain. At some future date Repubs will reap gains and Dems will complain. That just makes our politics cruder but it can be borne. The real problem is that we will get a more overtly political judiciary, and that will lead, over time, to less respect for the laws of our great Republic.:peace
Click to expand...

But the laws we now have are rewritten, subverted, portions are chosen to enforce and some portions not to. There isn't that much respect for the law as it is. Everything is political these days, everything is done for the good of the political party, not for the nation or the people as a whole.
 
Perotista said:
I'm headed down the highway, how we doing tonight. Quite a lot to think about as to what you said. I think you had some good points, but I am an old foggie who doesn't care for that much change. At least all at once.
Click to expand...

for what it is worth, here is cnn giving credit where credit is due.

What was known as the nuclear option yesterday is known as the Reid Rule today. Time will only tell if the Reid Rule is productive or destructive. But we'll leave that to the historians.

As for how it became the Reid rule, it took a coordinated and sustained effort from an unlikely place -- progressive activists on the blogosphere.
Click to expand...

And credit for the nuclear option goes to... - CNN.com

i will let that set in for you.

i guess the democrats were just listening to their constituents.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
for what it is worth, here is cnn giving credit where credit is due.



And credit for the nuclear option goes to... - CNN.com

i will let that set in for you.

i guess the democrats were just listening to their constituents.
Click to expand...

The Reid rule. Okay, I guess that beats the Senator Harry Reid Option all to get out. As for history, Senator Reid will be famous or infamous and I guess history can decide that too. As for listening to their constituents, it is a shame some of them didn't do that back in march of 2010. But it is what it is. I don't like it, but I do think now if any majority leader can do away with the filibuster when ever he wants by invoking the Reid Rule, I like that, just do away with it completely and let's not stop of just nominations.
 
Perotista said:
The Reid rule. Okay, I guess that beats the Senator Harry Reid Option all to get out. As for history, Senator Reid will be famous or infamous and I guess history can decide that too. As for listening to their constituents, it is a shame some of them didn't do that back in march of 2010. But it is what it is. I don't like it, but I do think now if any majority leader can do away with the filibuster when ever he wants by invoking the Reid Rule, I like that, just do away with it completely and let's not stop of just nominations.
Click to expand...

i don't mean to sound rude by asking this, but did you take into consideration what was in the article, mainly the reason why a group of activists chose to campaign for filibuster reform?
 
clownboy said:
Because of the real motive for this - to pack the DC court while they still have the majority. That can't be changed later on.
Click to expand...
The House needs to defund the courts and reformulate them. It is time to start over with everything below the Supreme Court.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i don't mean to sound rude by asking this, but did you take into consideration what was in the article, mainly the reason why a group of activists chose to campaign for filibuster reform?
Click to expand...

they campaigned on it because they weren't getting their way on everything and they wanted to get their way on everything... so they whined and whined.. and whined... about the GOP not allowing them to get their way in everything.....
because , you know, only liberals count in this country.. they think they should get anything they want, when they want it, with no opposition.

when conservatives are in power, the same notion applies..... it's all about party and ideology, nobody else in the country matters.
 
Perotista said:
But the laws we now have are rewritten, subverted, portions are chosen to enforce and some portions not to. There isn't that much respect for the law as it is. Everything is political these days, everything is done for the good of the political party, not for the nation or the people as a whole.
Click to expand...

But most of the population respects the law.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom