• 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

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.
No, I don't like changing the rules, despite what I wrote in the OP, I think he filibuster is very important. I am positive Harry Reid feels the same way, but unfortunately the Republicans left him with no choice.

obamagraphic.jpg


Sure I know what the Republicans could do given the right circumstance, but that would mean eliminating the filibuster altogether. That's not going to happen, I think the Republicans has more sense than that.
 
One of the fundamental differences in a Republic and a Democracy is the ability of a Minority Vote to have a voice. Eliminating a filibuster moves us towards a Mob Rule.

People are bitching that this is a Dem Power Grab... I assure you that when the GOP is back in majority, they will never consider the repeal of this rule.

In your mind - is there a difference between MOB RULE and MAJORITY RULE?
 
It is possible, but I doubt it. The tooth paste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back. If anything it will be expanded and at sometime in the future the whole filibuster thing will be wiped out and done away with. The senate has just completed their transformation from being a body intended to represent the states to just another House of Representatives, a body of the people who just represent their political parties and not really the people. I wonder how much longer the electoral college will stand, we are moving pretty quickly to becoming more of a direct democracy instead of a republic. Where 50% plus one will rule and have total say over the 50% minus one.

Yes, exactly what the framers did not want. But we have our new framers, Obama, Reid, and the rest of them. Obama declared a short while ago that he is "remaking the courts". Isn't that great? Since when is it the president's job to remake the courts? And from what to what? A body that is supposed to obey the Constitution to one that ignores it and grants broad power to the executive branch?

These are scary times for this country, and I can't remember anytime before when a president tried to circumvent the Constitution and grab power as much as this guy. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he's trying to destroy it. And he has the Senate helping, as evidenced by what Reid just did.
 
Yes, exactly what the framers did not want. But we have our new framers, Obama, Reid, and the rest of them. Obama declared a short while ago that he is "remaking the courts". Isn't that great? Since when is it the president's job to remake the courts? And from what to what? A body that is supposed to obey the Constitution to one that ignores it and grants broad power to the executive branch?

These are scary times for this country, and I can't remember anytime before when a president tried to circumvent the Constitution and grab power as much as this guy. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he's trying to destroy it. And he has the Senate helping, as evidenced by what Reid just did.

Sorry, hiding behind the Constitution on this one is beyond a stretch. There is nothing constitutional about the filibuster.

If the Cons wanted the filibuster, we would still have it. They really don't want it; they wanted the Dems to do the dirty work to get rid of it
 
Sorry, hiding behind the Constitution on this one is beyond a stretch. There is nothing constitutional about the filibuster.

If the Cons wanted the filibuster, we would still have it. They really don't want it; they wanted the Dems to do the dirty work to get rid of it

That's an interesting theory. But where do you get the idea that filibustering is unconstitutional?
 
if the Republicans get a majority in the Senate, will you push them to restore the filibuster rules?

After they clean up the messes the Democrats have made. :lol:
 
It is possible, but I doubt it. The tooth paste is out of the tube and there is no putting it back. If anything it will be expanded and at sometime in the future the whole filibuster thing will be wiped out and done away with. The senate has just completed their transformation from being a body intended to represent the states to just another House of Representatives, a body of the people who just represent their political parties and not really the people. I wonder how much longer the electoral college will stand, we are moving pretty quickly to becoming more of a direct democracy instead of a republic. Where 50% plus one will rule and have total say over the 50% minus one.

Hardly, given that 1/4 of the US population is represented by 62 US Senators (mostly Red States, BTW) and 3/4 of the US population is represented by 38 Senators....

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html

Given the small state super-majority, the Senate is hardly a House of Representatives.
 
That's an interesting theory. But where do you get the idea that filibustering is unconstitutional?

I did not say the filibuster was unconstitutional. It is a-Constitutional (neither affirmed nor denied in the Constitutional). I was responding to a suggestion that the so-called "nuclear option" was an affront the the Constitution. Getting rid of the filibuster is not a constitutional issue; it is a Senate rule of order. Dumping the filibuster may be in bad form amongst senators, but it is not, as the previous poster suggested, an affront to the Constitution.
 
I did not say the filibuster was unconstitutional.QUOTE]

Indeed you did, and only four posts ago: "Sorry, hiding behind the Constitution on this one is beyond a stretch. There is nothing constitutional about the filibuster."
 
Yeah they can replace department heads. But there should be a requirement that they have some background in that position.
The President can use whatever criteria he or she wants. The Senate, in turn, can use whatever criteria they believe is appropriate.


I didn't see it that way.....as if they are classified as bi-polar, or have dementia, and or ALS.
These are three very different diseases, with different effects. If you have depression, it is sometimes treatable. ALS is a terrible disease, but it affects motor function, not cognition. District courts are already trying to step up to determine which judges are becoming incapacitated from dementia.


I would think that would remove quite a bit of those liberal and progressive judges from the bench. Especially all those Bi-polar and ADD ones.
Uhm... Not all older judges are liberal/progressive, and not all judges with dementia are liberal/progressive. That's patently absurd.
 
No, he cannot. You've been listening to too much talk radio my friend.
Follow the thread. I was specifically referring to MMC's plan to replace judges more frequently.

In addition, only one Supreme Court justice has ever been filibustered, and then only for four days.
 
Hardly, given that 1/4 of the US population is represented by 62 US Senators (mostly Red States, BTW) and 3/4 of the US population is represented by 38 Senators....

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html

Given the small state super-majority, the Senate is hardly a House of Representatives.

The framers designed the house, the peoples house to represent the people, hence each district is to have so many people in it. The framers wanted the senate to represent the states, not the people in the states. This is why originally the framers had the state legislatures or governor or however each state chose to either appoint or elect the two senators from their state. The state was never intended to represent people. So what you state has no bases in the original design of the senate. Of course when the 17th amendment was passed that was the beginning death blow of the senate representing the states. Prior to the 17th, each state could tell their senators how to vote or what stance to take on the issues. The senators represented their states. Today, IMO each senator represents their political party much more than even the people in their state. Senators more times than not will side with the wishes of their party instead of the wishes of supposed the people and the state they were sent to Washington to represent.

The president was to be elected by the votes of the states, hence again originally each state was given a choice of how to determine their electors. The framers had no intention of having the popular vote elect the president. The framers didn't care if a state choose its electors by popular vote, by their legislatures, in a smoke filled room, that was entirely up to each state. The bottom line in the Representative Republic the framers left us, not a direct democracy, was only the house was to be chosen by the people. Hence the term peoples house.
 
the constitution simply states the senate can make its own rules, specifying a simple majority is not in it.
The filibuster is not in the Constitution, whereas "simple majority" is.


The filibuster has been around since 1806...
...and it has rarely been used. Until 1975, the rules made it difficult to filibuster. As the rules eased, filibusters have become downright routine. Its removal was also 100% above board, since the Senate voted to change its own rules.


speaking of doing away with the electoral college, I think it would take a constitutional amendment to do that.
Yes, it would. Which is why, unfortunately, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.


Perhaps it is time to just let each political party do exactly what they want to do, it is that way anyway.
No, I'd say it is time for both parties to ease back on the partisanship, and especially for the Republicans to stop it with the self-destructive obstructionism.
 
I am posting this again because it deserves attention in order to silence to defiantly ignorant Democrat supporters. Here is a comparison of Nomination cloture votes of the 108th Senate (Republican controlled) to the 113th Senate (Democrat Controlled). Which one shows a minority party being obstructionist?

113 Congress:

F= Failed Cloture, W= Withdrawn due to Unanimous consent (passed), I= Invoked (passed), V=Vitiated (Erroneous submission, etc.), N= No Vote, vebal consent (passed)

14-Nov PN529 Nominee Robert Leon Wilkins Reid 18-Nov 53 - 38 No. 235 F
7-Nov PN528 Nominee Cornelia T. L. Pillard Reid 12-Nov 56 - 41 No. 233 F
28-Oct PN527 Nominee Patricia Ann Millett Reid 31-Oct 55 - 38 No. 227 F
28-Oct PN408 Nominee Melvin L. Watt Reid 31-Oct 56 - 42 No. 226 F
28-Oct PN41 Nominee Jacob J. Lew Reid 30-Oct UC W
28-Oct PN412 Nominee Thomas Edgar Wheeler Reid 29-Oct no vote N
28-Oct PN509 Nominee Katherine Archuleta Reid 30-Oct 81 - 18 No. 224 I
28-Oct PN36 Nominee Alan F. Estevez Reid 30-Oct 91 - 8 No. 223 I
16-Oct PN789 Nominee Richard F. Griffin Reid 29-Oct 62 - 37 No. 221 I
29-Jul PN554 Nominee Samantha Power Reid 30-Jul UC W
29-Jul PN120 Nominee Byron Todd Jones Reid 31-Jul 60 - 40 No. 196 I
25-Jul PN266 Nominee Mark Gaston Pearce Reid 30-Jul 69 - 29 No. 193 I
25-Jul PN680 Nominee Nancy Jean Schiffer Reid 30-Jul 65 - 33 No. 191 I
25-Jul PN679 Nominee Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa Reid 30-Jul 64 - 34 No. 189 I
25-Jul PN586 Nominee James B. Comey, Jr Reid 29-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN192 Nominee Regina McCarthy Reid 18-Jul 69 - 31 No. 179 I
11-Jul PN205 Nominee Thomas Edward Perez Reid 17-Jul 60 - 40 No. 177 I
11-Jul PN239 Nominee Fred P. Hochberg Reid 17-Jul 82 - 18 No. 175 I
11-Jul PN266 Nominee Mark Gaston Pearce Reid 16-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN159 Nominee Sharon Block Reid 16-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN158 Nominee Richard F. Griffin Reid 16-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN157 Nominee Richard Cordray Reid 16-Jul 71 - 29 No. 173 I
21-May PN6 Nominee Srikanth Srinivasan Reid 23-May UC W
6-Mar PN48 Nominee John Owen Brennan Durbin 7-Mar 81 - 16 No. 31 I
4-Mar PN2 Nominee Caitlin Joan Halligan Reid 6-Mar 51 - 41 No. 30 F
13-Feb PN34 Nominee Charles Timothy Hagel Reid 26-Feb 71 - 27* No. 23 I

That if 5 Cloture Failures out of 26

Now let's look at the 108th Senate, shall we?

12-Nov PN8 Judicial nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl Frist 12-Nov 53 - 43 No. 451 F
28-Oct PN12 Judicial nominee Charles W. Pickering, Sr. McConnell 30-Oct 54 - 43 No. 419 F
21-Jul PN9 Judicial nominee David W. McKeague Frist 22-Jul 53 - 44 No. 162 F
20-Jul PN14 Judicial nominee Henry W. Saad Frist 22-Jul 52 - 46 No. 160 F
12-Nov PN839 Judicial nominee Janice R. Brown Frist 12-Nov 53 - 43 No. 452 F
4-Mar PN6 Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada Frist 6-Mar 55 - 44 No. 40 F
29-Apr PN11 Judicial nominee Priscilla R. Owen McConnell 1-May 52 - 44 No. 137 F
21-Jul PN7 Judicial nominee Richard A. Griffin Frist 22-Jul 54 - 44 No. 161 F
16-Jul PN658 Judicial nominee William G. Myers Frist 20-Jul 53 - 44 No. 158 F
4-Nov PN512 Judicial nominee William H. Pryor, Jr. Santorum 6-Nov 51 - 43 No. 441 F
4-Mar PN2 Nominee Caitlin Joan Halligan Reid 6-Mar 51 - 41 No. 30 F
7-Nov PN528 Nominee Cornelia T. L. Pillard Reid 12-Nov 56 - 41 No. 233 F
28-Oct PN408 Nominee Melvin L. Watt Reid 31-Oct 56 - 42 No. 226 F
28-Oct PN527 Nominee Patricia Ann Millett Reid 31-Oct 55 - 38 No. 227 F
14-Nov PN529 Nominee Robert Leon Wilkins Reid 18-Nov 53 - 38 No. 235 F
12-Nov PN141 Nominee Thomas C. Dorr Frist 18-Nov 57 - 39 No. 455 F
28-Oct PN36 Nominee Alan F. Estevez Reid 30-Oct 91 - 8 No. 223 I
29-Jul PN120 Nominee Byron Todd Jones Reid 31-Jul 60 - 40 No. 196 I
13-Feb PN34 Nominee Charles Timothy Hagel Reid 26-Feb 71 - 27* No. 23 I
11-Jul PN239 Nominee Fred P. Hochberg Reid 17-Jul 82 - 18 No. 175 I
6-Mar PN48 Nominee John Owen Brennan Durbin 7-Mar 81 - 16 No. 31 I
28-Oct PN509 Nominee Katherine Archuleta Reid 30-Oct 81 - 18 No. 224 I
25-Jul PN679 Nominee Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa Reid 30-Jul 64 - 34 No. 189 I
25-Jul PN266 Nominee Mark Gaston Pearce Reid 30-Jul 69 - 29 No. 193 I
25-Jul PN680 Nominee Nancy Jean Schiffer Reid 30-Jul 65 - 33 No. 191 I
11-Jul PN192 Nominee Regina McCarthy Reid 18-Jul 69 - 31 No. 179 I
11-Jul PN157 Nominee Richard Cordray Reid 16-Jul 71 - 29 No. 173 I
16-Oct PN789 Nominee Richard F. Griffin Reid 29-Oct 62 - 37 No. 221 I
11-Jul PN205 Nominee Thomas Edward Perez Reid 17-Jul 60 - 40 No. 177 I
28-Oct PN412 Nominee Thomas Edgar Wheeler Reid 29-Oct no vote N
27-Jun PN38 Judicial nominee Victor J. Wolski Frist 8-Jul UC V
23-Oct PN884 Nominee Michael O. Leavitt McConnell 27-Oct UC V
28-Oct PN41 Nominee Jacob J. Lew Reid 30-Oct UC W
25-Jul PN586 Nominee James B. Comey, Jr Reid 29-Jul UC W
29-Jul PN554 Nominee Samantha Power Reid 30-Jul UC W
11-Jul PN159 Nominee Sharon Block Reid 16-Jul UC W
21-May PN6 Nominee Srikanth Srinivasan Reid 23-May UC W


That is 16 Failed Cloture votes out of 37, or 43% of all nominees. I removed all of the repeated cloture failures for certain nominees. The Democrats blocked Estrada on 7 separate cloture votes.

So which party is obstructionist again?
Like I said to pbrauer:

Would you have said that when the democrats were holding up republican nominees?
 
Yes, exactly what the framers did not want. But we have our new framers, Obama, Reid, and the rest of them. Obama declared a short while ago that he is "remaking the courts". Isn't that great?
He was referring to speeding up the pace of nominations.

And yes, making appointments is his job.


Since when is it the president's job to remake the courts?
Since day 1. Jefferson, for example, inherited courts packed with Federalists -- whom he tried to yank out by impeaching the whole lot of them. (He was stopped fairly quickly.)


And from what to what? A body that is supposed to obey the Constitution to one that ignores it and grants broad power to the executive branch?
Into a system with climbing vacancies, to one with actual judges doing their job.


These are scary times for this country, and I can't remember anytime before when a president tried to circumvent the Constitution and grab power as much as this guy.
Uh, how about pretty much every President in the past 50 years? Bush 43 was particularly egregious, with the warrantless wiretaps, ripping up due process with a mere accusation of "terrorism," expanding the NSA. Reagan, lauded by conservatives, directly violated the law by selling arms to the Contras. Nixon shredded the Constitution by subverting the entire electoral process. Roosevelt infamously tried to pack the Supreme Court, and pushed the limits of executive powers.

I might add that a bit of back-and-forth between branches is perfectly normal. There is absolutely no way to have a perfect balance of all the branches, all the time.
 
The filibuster is not in the Constitution, whereas "simple majority" is.



...and it has rarely been used. Until 1975, the rules made it difficult to filibuster. As the rules eased, filibusters have become downright routine. Its removal was also 100% above board, since the Senate voted to change its own rules.



Yes, it would. Which is why, unfortunately, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.



No, I'd say it is time for both parties to ease back on the partisanship, and especially for the Republicans to stop it with the self-destructive obstructionism.

That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened. You have two hard heads as leaders of the senate, both Reid and McConnell IMO put their party 50,000 miles above the country. Something like this would have never happened under the leadership of Robert Byrd or Howard Baker, under George Mitchell or Robert Dole, not even under Tom Daschle or Trent Lott.

I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House. The senate does have the power to amend, add, delete and change every one of those bills to make them very friendly. It was a two way street. If we had different leaders in the senate, perhaps an Alexander and a Leahey, there would have been no need for Reids Rule.

But it is what it is and the political parties can have their own way. The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it. I'll go back to my business of forecasting elections and let the two parties tear each other apart. Why not, there are no more rules.
 
That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened. You have two hard heads as leaders of the senate, both Reid and McConnell IMO put their party 50,000 miles above the country. Something like this would have never happened under the leadership of Robert Byrd or Howard Baker, under George Mitchell or Robert Dole, not even under Tom Daschle or Trent Lott.

I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House. The senate does have the power to amend, add, delete and change every one of those bills to make them very friendly. It was a two way street. If we had different leaders in the senate, perhaps an Alexander and a Leahey, there would have been no need for Reids Rule.

But it is what it is and the political parties can have their own way. The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it. I'll go back to my business of forecasting elections and let the two parties tear each other apart. Why not, there are no more rules.

APPLAUSE :applaud
 
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?

Holding up the government is often the wisest action. A few republicans started a filibuster of corrupt associate justice Abe Fortas when LBJ wanted that crook as CJ. the delay allowed more information to be gathered-information so damning that Fortas NOT ONLY WITHDREW as the nominee for the CJ, he resigned from his associate seat on the bench.

so sometimes delay is a good thing
 
That my friend, as to easing back is never going to happened.
Of course it can. Since you missed it, the US got so divided that we had a civil war -- and we came back from it. The divide between North and South was also very extreme in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement came to a head. There is no reason why politicians can't walk back from the precipice, especially if the public really bothers to push for it.


I think one can blame the Republicans for the filibusters, but one can also blame Reid for tabling almost every bill that comes over from the Republican House.
Yeah, I'm gonna side with Mann and Ornstein on this one. The Democrats are far from innocent, but the majority of the blame for the current stalemate and hostility happens to lie with the Republicans, and is based in their bomb-throwing anti-government agenda.


The rules of the senate stated it took 67 votes to change the rules, not a simple majority as you stated. But Senator Reid found a loop hole and used it. So be it.
Using a loophole to eliminate a loophole is a wonderful irony.

And again, the Republicans almost "went nuclear" in 2005, when they were frustrated over the holdups of Bush nominees. The only reason they're going ballistic over this is not because they are concerned for the minority (which, given their attempts to disenfranchise minorities across the US, is a cruel irony), but because it's an action taken by the Democrats -- which means they have obligated themselves to oppose it.
 
Of course it can. Since you missed it, the US got so divided that we had a civil war -- and we came back from it. The divide between North and South was also very extreme in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement came to a head. There is no reason why politicians can't walk back from the precipice, especially if the public really bothers to push for it.



Yeah, I'm gonna side with Mann and Ornstein on this one. The Democrats are far from innocent, but the majority of the blame for the current stalemate and hostility happens to lie with the Republicans, and is based in their bomb-throwing anti-government agenda.



Using a loophole to eliminate a loophole is a wonderful irony.

And again, the Republicans almost "went nuclear" in 2005, when they were frustrated over the holdups of Bush nominees. The only reason they're going ballistic over this is not because they are concerned for the minority (which, given their attempts to disenfranchise minorities across the US, is a cruel irony), but because it's an action taken by the Democrats -- which means they have obligated themselves to oppose it.

The only way of an easing up of the political poisonous atmospher in D.C. is if we were, as voters to send most packing. But we in the electorate are not going to do that. Then you have the problem in the house where gerrymandering creats safe districts which in itself causes those who sit in them to become very hard left and right. Well most of the electorate is somewhere in the middle, most of those in congress are on the fringes. So I do not see changes coming anytime soon.

Siding with one side or the other is your perogitive. I prefer to blame both parties.

Speaking of irony, how about the party most known for protecting minority rights just nuked the minorty party of its rights. FYI I was opposed to it in 2005 also. Like I said I am a traditionalist. I would rather suffer though non-appointments for a year or two than see protection of the minority eliminated. Once used, it will become common place, hence I am of the oppinion to just do away with it now.

I still think they, the Democrats should have listen to Levin. He was in the minority once before, not like 33 Democratic who voted for the Nuke option who never served in the minority. There is something to be said for the widom and experience of someone who has been there and done that. But it is what it is.

I wonder if there are any lessons to be learned for the 21st of November action and if there are, what are they?
 
His "insane" habit is because the Republicans are categorically refusing to accept the basic function of a President to fill nominations.



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.

Where are you getting these numbers. This link quotes completely different data: Are Republicans really blocking Obama

According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.

President Obama also didn't fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved

For example, during Reagan’s first term, it only took 45.5 days for one of his nominees to get approved. That number escalated only marginally over the next 20 years. But by the time George W. Bush was in office, the number skyrocketed to 277 days. Obama has fared slightly better than Bush, with his nominees taking 225.5 days to get approved. But historically speaking, it’s still a severe departure from most presidencies.

Obama’s district court nominees have also suffered from extended confirmation delays. Again, Reagan’s nominees breezed through, with just a 28-day waiting period during his first term, compared with 215 days for Obama.

It is out of control, from BOTH SIDES. Who started it, does not matter, but the invokation of the Nuclear Option is a bad move for the Republic.
 
so sometimes delay is a good thing

And when "sometimes" become "every time," it is not a good thing. The GOP couldn't play with their toy responsibly, so now nobody gets to have it.
 
Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.
That is a republicon thing .

I'd say you have a very short memory, but chances are, you were never aware of this to begin with:

During the 108th Congress in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, the nominees that the Senate Democrats had blocked in the 107th Congress began to be moved through the now Republican Senate Judiciary Committee.[10] Subsequently Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be successfully filibustered.[citation needed] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[11] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

As a result of these ten filibusters, Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott termed the "nuclear option". This change in rules would eliminate the use of the filibuster to prevent judicial confirmation votes. However, in the 108th Congress, with only a two vote majority, the Republicans were in a weak position to implement this procedural maneuver.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Where are you getting these numbers. This link quotes completely different data: Are Republicans really blocking Obama



It is out of control, from BOTH SIDES. Who started it, does not matter, but the invokation of the Nuclear Option is a bad move for the Republic.

It's just changing certain appointments back to the constitutionally-identified simple majority rather than the de-facto supermajority that it has become. It's hardly an earth-shattering event and I really wish the media would stop referring it by the same name we use to identify the worst weapons ever created by mankind.
 
And when "sometimes" become "every time," it is not a good thing. The GOP couldn't play with their toy responsibly, so now nobody gets to have it.

I really don't think you or Harry Reid are all that objective when it comes to using the term "responsible"
 
Back
Top Bottom