• 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

Objective Voice said:
No. What Senate Republicans are really upside with is they see this as a power grab. The fear Senate Dems will run rough-shot over them as long as Republicans remain the minority party in the Senate. Moreover, they fear the lower judicial courts (District and Appeals) will be loaded with Liberal judges. It's got nothing to do with changing tradition because when they were in power not too long ago, they threatened to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Threatening and doing are two different things.
 
In my form of utopian positivity, we all knew things were beyond broken, not just in the Senate..Reid's caucus forced him to do this, Reid is just the messenger..My faith in this Nation now tells me they start working together again..This is a jump-start to end futility .
Objective Voice said:
Just found this article from Forbs.com which gives a very good overview of how Republicans reacted by in 2005 when the situation was reversed. Only back then the Dems kept their side of the bargain.



It's becoming clear to me that Senate Republicans reneged on their part of the deal this time around. This is why I'm not too hell bent on Sen. Reid's decision to pull the trigger. Granted, it might come back and bit him (and the President) in the butt, but the more people learn why this was done and what led up to it, the more I think people will kinda see things alittle more like Perotista (re: "President should get consideration for his nominations in a straight up or down vote with few excepts" (if I've interpreted his commentary correctly)).
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
If the GOP hadn't abused the filibuster, this wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

Partisan hack point. the Dems did the same thing to eminently qualified candidates like Estrada (endorsed by ALL FOUR LIVING DEMOCRAT SOLICITOR GENERALS) and Peter Keisler
 
Objective Voice said:
Nothing the SC can do about this considering that the opening line to Art. I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives both chambers of Congress the authority to set their own rules:



All the SC will say is the Senate Majority Leader followed Senate Rules, its members voted and the rules were changed by majority vote.

Next!
Click to expand...
I meant go all the way with the filibuster on the SCOTUS as Repubs will nuke the filibuster if Dems use it in the future on Repub SCOTUS nominees like Clarence Thomas, who surely would not make it past a Dem filibuster today..I rather look forward to Repubs repealing everything .
 
Edit post #645:

"The way I see it, if they backed away from not blocking nominations for long vacant positions that the President needs to have filled, then IMHO they left Sen. Reid no choice but to change the rules."
 
TurtleDude said:
Partisan hack point. the Dems did the same thing to eminently qualified candidates like Estrada (endorsed by ALL FOUR LIVING DEMOCRAT SOLICITOR GENERALS) and Peter Keisler
Click to expand...

They did, and that's why Senate Dems and Senate Republicans negotiated their truce -- no filibusters except for "exceptional circumstances," no nuclear option. That argument apparently didn't go both ways, and the Senate Republicans (now the minority) filibustered (or threatened to, which is all it takes anymore) at a record rate for reasons that most certainly would not be considered "exceptional."

Also, it's "solicitors general."
 
TurtleDude said:
Partisan hack point. the Dems did the same thing to eminently qualified candidates like Estrada (endorsed by ALL FOUR LIVING DEMOCRAT SOLICITOR GENERALS) and Peter Keisler
Click to expand...

Do you know anything else but be upset at Estrada and Keisler and FDR..As if they're the only two good people ever caught in partisan politics..When did these filibustering abuses begin ??
 
NIMBY said:
Do you know anything else but be upset at Estrada and Keisler and FDR..As if they're the only two good people ever caught in partisan politics..When did these filibustering abuses begin ??
Click to expand...

You didn't understand the point apparently
 
cpgrad08 said:
Because it can both ways and destroys a long stand rule and tradition of the senate.
Click to expand...
Can what both ways?

And why should anyone give a crap about a "tradition," with no Constitutional basis, that is holding up the entire government?
 
Anthony60 said:
Wow, what a well thought out and reasoned response. Removing all doubt about your level of understanding. Get educated.
Click to expand...

Sometimes someone is just plain wrong, and that's all that needs to be said. Like you, back there.
 
The loons have many more interesting appointments like the "The Wise Latina" and that other fruitcake that Obama put on the Supreme Court.
 
Ray410 said:
The loons have many more interesting appointments like the "The Wise Latina" and that other fruitcake that Obama put on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Yay for out of context quote mining and no substantive criticisms of Sotomayor or Kagan whatsoever.
 
Kobie said:
Yay for out of context quote mining and no substantive criticisms of Sotomayor or Kagan whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Ha! The mention of their names is a substantive criticism. Do you even realize the low level of respect that Americans have for liberals?

Nice try though.
 
Ray410 said:
Ha! The mention of their names is a substantive criticism.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. Not on the intellectually honest plane where most of us reside.

Ray410 said:
Do you even realize the low level of respect that Americans have for liberals?
Click to expand...

Show me a scientific poll that illustrates the disdain "Americans" have for "liberals," as if those were mutually exclusive groups in the first place.

Ray410 said:
Nice try though.
Click to expand...

I wish I could say the same to you.
 
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...

Yeah ole Harry came through for ya!

Clear-that-up.jpg



This move will surely allow the lefties to pack the courts but I don't think you realize the implications it has in store for you in the future. For if the Senate on a partisan vote change the rules to avoid filibusters on judges, the next majority can use the same tactics in repealing Obamacare, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and anything else they want to put out there. If the House maintains their majority which looks likely, and Republicans take the majority in the Senate which currently looks very possible as does a Republican president, it may well be the very thing that will allow Congress to undo the damage that the left has done to this country. They could reign in the Department of Education, Department of Energy, and other agencies like the EPA which keeps pumping out feckless numbers of new regulations killing jobs, violating property rights and raising heating costs for many Americans by 46%.

You want to change the rules? Well two can play that way and when the Republicans are done cleaning up the mess the left has created, they can then restore the rule of law.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Emphasis added by me.

Then you may want to read the Constitution again. Specifically Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.
Click to expand...

Great point....Thank you. Then, the Democrats do have the Constitutional authority to do exactly what they are doing now. The Republicans should take note for the future. The section noted gives to each house the power to determine the rules of its proceedings.
 
vesper said:
yeah ole harry came through for ya!

clear-that-up.jpg



this move will surely allow the lefties to pack the courts but i don't think you realize the implications it has in store for you in the future. For if the senate on a partisan vote change the rules to avoid filibusters on judges, the next majority can use the same tactics in repealing obamacare, passing a balanced budget amendment and anything else they want to put out there. If the house maintains their majority which looks likely, and republicans take the majority in the senate which currently looks very possible as does a republican president, it may well be the very thing that will allow congress to undo the damage that the left has done to this country. They could reign in the department of education, department of energy, and other agencies like the epa which keeps pumping out feckless numbers of new regulations killing jobs, violating property rights and raising heating costs for many americans by 46%.

Y
ou want to change the rules? Well two can play that way and when the republicans are done cleaning up the mess the left has created, they can then restore the rule of law.
Click to expand...




If the GOP ever wins enough seats to control the Senate and they wants to change the rules so that the Democrats can block everything that they try to do, that's fine with me.
Click to expand...
 
shrubnose said:
If the GOP ever wins enough seats to control the Senate and they wants to change the rules so that the Democrats can block everything that they try to do, that's fine with me.
Click to expand...
The Senate is suppose to be a body that makes it difficult to change laws on a whim. These law changes on filibusters didn't start till 1977. But two can play the game.
All it's going to take is 51 seats in the Senate to repeal Obamacare.

 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...



Well, I wasn't talking about when the Republicans wanted to do it.....and now as you say. It's the Democrats turn. So they are doing it.....alone. Just like they produced Obamacare.....alone.

Myself, I think they need to come up with a different method of filling in Appointments, as long as it remains Constitutional. Judicial or any others.
 
vesper said:
Yeah ole Harry came through for ya!

Clear-that-up.jpg



This move will surely allow the lefties to pack the courts but I don't think you realize the implications it has in store for you in the future. For if the Senate on a partisan vote change the rules to avoid filibusters on judges, the next majority can use the same tactics in repealing Obamacare, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and anything else they want to put out there. If the House maintains their majority which looks likely, and Republicans take the majority in the Senate which currently looks very possible as does a Republican president, it may well be the very thing that will allow Congress to undo the damage that the left has done to this country. They could reign in the Department of Education, Department of Energy, and other agencies like the EPA which keeps pumping out feckless numbers of new regulations killing jobs, violating property rights and raising heating costs for many Americans by 46%.

You want to change the rules? Well two can play that way and when the Republicans are done cleaning up the mess the left has created, they can then restore the rule of law.
Click to expand...

it's delusional to think the GOP will change the rule back when they gain control ( when, not if).... being able to do what you want without opposition is a a dream of both parties..... and both parties will whine and cry when they are in the minority and made irrelevant.


Democrat who are cheering this on today will find themselves crying and whining when Republicans use it... take that to the bank.
republicans will gladly support it when that day comes... and Harry Reid opened that door for them to use it and support it.
 
Thrilla said:
it's delusional to think the GOP will change the rule back when they gain control ( when, not if).... being able to do what you want without opposition is a a dream of both parties..... and both parties will whine and cry when they are in the minority and made irrelevant.


Democrat who are cheering this on today will find themselves crying and whining when Republicans use it... take that to the bank.
republicans will gladly support it when that day comes... and Harry Reid opened that door for them to use it and support it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it delusional to think the base of the party would be in favor of restoring the rules, can't speak for the rest of them. But what the Republican party could do right now is everything that Reid brings up for a vote is use the filibuster rules still in place for all other legislation, to make the left work real hard to pass anymore legislation. It may force ole Harry to invoke another nuclear option or force Obama to reach for his pen quite frequently to sign another Executive Order bypassing Congress altogether. Both tactics showing abuse of powers.

Wasn't it Lindsey Graham that vowed to filibuster any Obama nominee until the White House was willing to release all the documents pertaining to Benghazi? Looks like ole Harry snuffed out Graham's candle.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
it's delusional to think the GOP will change the rule back when they gain control ( when, not if).... being able to do what you want without opposition is a a dream of both parties..... and both parties will whine and cry when they are in the minority and made irrelevant.


Democrat who are cheering this on today will find themselves crying and whining when Republicans use it... take that to the bank.

republicans will gladly support it when that day comes... and Harry Reid opened that door for them to use it and support it.
Click to expand...

I cynically agree but hope they won't. Perotista's right about it's not being good for the country to be veering either wildly left or right. Not that Reid or others are thinking about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom