Senate goes "nuclear"

[Bob Juch]

The Senate has voted to change one of the chamber's most fundamental rules, invoking the so-called 'nuclear option' for executive branch and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... rules?lite

[Bob78164]

The Senate has voted to change one of the chamber's most fundamental rules, invoking the so-called 'nuclear option' for executive branch and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... rules?lite

Good. When the minority party uses the filibuster, not because they have objections to a specific nominee, but simply to prevent the candidate who won the election from filling any more spots on the second most powerful bench in the country, then it's long past time to restore majority rule to the Senate. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I trust the wisdom of Harry Reid

[a1mamacat]

HA! (to quote a famous Goddess)

Your Senate got NUTTIN on our Senate these days

[silverscreenselect]

The Senate has voted to change one of the chamber's most fundamental rules, invoking the so-called 'nuclear option' for executive branch and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... rules?lite

Good. When the minority party uses the filibuster, not because they have objections to a specific nominee, but simply to prevent the candidate who won the election from filling any more spots on the second most powerful bench in the country, then it's long past time to restore majority rule to the Senate. --Bob

I'm curious what's going to happen if Justice Scalia (who's well into his 70s) were to retire in the near future. Would the Republicans approve anyone or try to run the clock out until 2016?

[Bob78164]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... rules?lite

Good. When the minority party uses the filibuster, not because they have objections to a specific nominee, but simply to prevent the candidate who won the election from filling any more spots on the second most powerful bench in the country, then it's long past time to restore majority rule to the Senate. --Bob

I'm curious what's going to happen if Justice Scalia (who's well into his 70s) were to retire in the near future. Would the Republicans approve anyone or try to run the clock out until 2016?

I think this picture gives us the answer to that question:



--Bob

[Bob Juch]

Fox News commentator Charles W. Cooke on Thursday warned that the recent move from the Senate to end filibusters on judicial nominees could lead to a “military coup.”

[silverscreenselect]

I've actually been in favor of the current filibuster rules ... as long as it's an actual filibuster. If Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz wants to get up over and over again to protest every single judge that Obama nominates, let him. C-Span, You Tube and Comedy Central would have a field day with that and the move would again backfire on Republicans like so many other of their obstructionist tactics do when the public actually becomes aware of them.

The problem is that we've currently got a non-filibuster filibuster about which a large percentage of the public is unaware of how it works, which leads to their general displeasure with Congress at not getting anything done, but doesn't assign blame where it belongs ... squarely with the Republicans.

[BackInTex]

You guy would be really funny if it weren't so sad, the situation this country is in because of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and the ignorant electorate that put them there.

Fast and Furious
Benghazi
IRS scandal
Obamacare
Obamacare web site
Falsified unemployement numbers

but as long as the Democarats deliver free birthcontrol and abortion on demand they get your votes.

[Bob Juch]

You guy would be really funny if it weren't so sad, the situation this country is in because of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and the ignorant electorate that put them there.

Fast and Furious
Benghazi
IRS scandal
Obamacare
Obamacare web site
Falsified unemployement numbers

but as long as the Democarats deliver free birthcontrol and abortion on demand they get your votes.

You are drowning in Kool-Aid.

[silverscreenselect]

but as long as the Democarats deliver free birthcontrol and abortion on demand they get your votes.

Obama did not get my vote. Either time. I also did not vote for Bush either time.

They are both incompetent morons in well over their heads with a string of debacles to back that up.

The difference is that instead of opposing Bush personally, Democrats proposed alternatives to his policies. Republicans have done nothing for five years but oppose Obama and every single thing he says or does. Once he is gone, they have nothing left.

[Beebs52]

but as long as the Democarats deliver free birthcontrol and abortion on demand they get your votes.

Obama did not get my vote. Either time. I also did not vote for Bush either time.

They are both incompetent morons in well over their heads with a string of debacles to back that up.

The difference is that instead of opposing Bush personally, Democrats proposed alternatives to his policies. Republicans have done nothing for five years but oppose Obama and every single thing he says or does. Once he is gone, they have nothing left.

That's not true.

[Estonut]

I trust the wisdom of Harry Reid

Which Harry Reid?

In 2005, when the "nuclear option" was threatened by a Republican, he said, "If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it."

[Beebs52]

They have their flavor of koolaid and presenting examples to refute would be a waste of time and effort. They who prevail in the long run prevail. Very simple for better or worse.

[BackInTex]

have done nothing for five years but oppose Obama and every single thing he says or does. Once he is gone, they have nothing left.

Its kept them busy, but given none of your folks would do it, someone had to. Your heroes became Obamanauts. They, as will all self-preserving Democrats will try to distance themselves from this President over the next 3 years, some this next year for sure. It will be up to the Republicans to make sure the truth of the former alliances stays in the open.

[TheCalvinator24]

Good. When the minority party uses the filibuster, not because they have objections to a specific nominee, but simply to prevent the candidate who won the election from filling any more spots on the second most powerful bench in the country, then it's long past time to restore majority rule to the Senate. --Bob

I'm curious what's going to happen if Justice Scalia (who's well into his 70s) were to retire in the near future. Would the Republicans approve anyone or try to run the clock out until 2016?

I think this picture gives us the answer to that question:



--Bob

When the Republicans regain the Senate, I hope the new majority leader plays by the same rules that Reid has. This is, filing a cloture motion even when there's no filibuster threatened so it can look like the Democrats are trying to be obstructionist, even when they're not. Reid has played games with cloture motions to create the impression that Republicans are filibustering or threatening to filibuster more bills than have ever been filibustered before.

The cake is a lie.

[Bob Juch]

I trust the wisdom of Harry Reid

Which Harry Reid?

In 2005, when the "nuclear option" was threatened by a Republican, he said, "If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it."

FACT: There have been 168 filibusters of presidential nominees in all of US history. 82 of them came under Obama.

[Pastor Fireball]

Wow. I didn't think that the Democratic senators had the balls to do it. (The Republican senators certainly didn't when they threatened to go nuclear when the GOP was in power of all three branches of the federal government.) The Democratic senators finally proved me wrong. Good for them for finally sticking it in the collective GOP eye.

[TheCalvinator24]

"The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode Island, Maine or Iowa know that their constituents are given a far larger say than people from New York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has two votes, regardless of population."

"The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes."

"it seems to us this [Judicial nominations] is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process."

Any guesses where the editorial from which I pulled these passages appears?

[silverscreenselect]

"The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes."

It seems the filibuster arose more as an unintended consequence of some rather unremarkable parliamentary procedure than an attempt to give a minority the ability to tie up legislation indefinitely.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testi ... ter-binder

[Bob78164]

"The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode Island, Maine or Iowa know that their constituents are given a far larger say than people from New York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has two votes, regardless of population."

"The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes."

"it seems to us this [Judicial nominations] is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process."

Any guesses where the editorial from which I pulled these passages appears?

It's not "us[ing the instrument] with caution" to prevent votes on everyone President Obama might nominate to the D.C. Circuit because the minority wants to preserve the perceived partisan division on that Court. He won the election. He has the right to make appointments to that Court. And the Republican obstructionism was as naked a power grab as I have ever seen in Washington, leaving the Democrats no choice but to respond. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

"The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode Island, Maine or Iowa know that their constituents are given a far larger say than people from New York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has two votes, regardless of population."

"The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes."

"it seems to us this [Judicial nominations] is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process."

Any guesses where the editorial from which I pulled these passages appears?

It's on about 500 right-wing blogs. I don't know which one you copied this from.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yesterday was a sad day in American History.

Congratulations, democrats. We are now well on the way to becoming just like Venezuela.

The democrats, who vote as a block on most issues, can now fill the courts with their synchophants and effectively control the course of the country even when they are voted out of the representative branches because of their failures, manipulations, lies and power grabs that are now obvious to all but the BJs of the world. Is it any coincidence they do it out of the blue the day before the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination? And that Obama decides out of the blue to postpone more Obamacare stuff until after the midterm elections (which he does not have the authority to do, but who's going to challenge him?) to take advantage of the lack of media focus that will occur today?

I have been trying to come to terms with the fact that for the rest of my life I will live in a dictatorship.

I would be just as afraid if the Republicans did it.

[silverscreenselect]

Yesterday was a sad day in American History.

Congratulations, democrats. We are now well on the way to becoming just like Venezuela.

The democrats, who vote as a block on most issues, can now fill the courts with their synchophants and effectively control the course of the country even when they are voted out of the representative branches because of their failures, manipulations, lies and power grabs that are now obvious to all but the BJs of the world.

This is hilarious coming from someone who claims to respect the Constitution, because the Constitution gives the President the power to

nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for

It doesn't say with the consent of 60% of the Senate. And the Founding Fathers did know how to require a supermajority, for ratifying treaties and convicting impeached officials.

And the brand of democracy being practiced by the Republican party in which a minority attempts to thwart the ability of the majority to govern as the Constituion intended is exactly the type of "democracy" being practiced in countries like Venezuela. Let's not forget that up until 2006, it was the Republicans who had the majority in the Sentate, and the Presidency until 2008 until the voters booted them out "because of their failures, manipulations, lies and power grabs" and now, as a minority, are trying to "effectively control the course of the country even when they are voted out of the representative branches."

[jarnon]

This is a sad event for our government. Both parties deserve blame for the extreme partisanship that led to this. They were able to compromise on this issue as recently as July, but apparently the animosity is even worse now. How are they going to reach agreement on major disputes like the budget?