|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Democrats are going to regret|
Democrats are going to regret
Posted - 11/21/2013 3:53:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
triggering the so-called "nuclear option" over a GOP tactic that DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES invented in 2005 when they repeatedly blocked the nominees of then-president George W. Bush.
This move has been threatened many times but up to now cooler heads have prevailed, saying the senate is a much more deliberative body than the house. Filibusters are an integral part of the parliamentary rules and ensure full debate and that one party cannot run roughshod over the other.
To change the rules in the middle of a session...as Obama's minions have done...is to signal a partisan shift to the far left, the purpose of which is to permit Democrats to change the topic away from the dismal failure that is Obamacare.
Posted - 11/21/2013 5:01:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
keep right on spouting the farrightwingnut line..
the democrats did what they did in order to actually get something done in the "much more deliberative" senate..
no longer can the minority bring the majority to a halt..
we elect people to office if they win 50 per cent of the vote plus one..
why should the rule in the senate be 60 votes?..majority rules.. that;s how it works here in America..
Posted - 11/21/2013 5:12:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
From another "farrightwingnutjob"
"Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday dismissed an effort by some Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, saying the chamber's procedures were designed to prevent the majority party from unilaterally changing the rules." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/reid-nixes-filibuster-reform-e.html
Posted - 11/21/2013 6:10:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
sure.. and that was said on what thursday?..
looks like 3 and a half years ago to me..
as that renowned philosopher j.d. souther said, "time passes.. things change.."
reid probably didn't foresee the republicans being stampeded by the farrightwingnuts into shutting down the legislative process..
so far as i'm concerned, every vote on anything in either house must be "majority rules"..51-49 is just fine..
don't like it?..as that other renowned philosopher, barack Obama said.."win some elections"..
Posted - 11/21/2013 6:49:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
This is nothing more than a naked power grab. The president wants to pack the court with judges who are outside of the mainstream.
These judges will aid this administration and the left in further chipping away at religious freedoms and personal rights.
This power grab increases the odds Republicans will gain seats in the senate.
Posted - 11/21/2013 7:24:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
The Nuclear Option
Such inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder how many people will perish from this VS the Hiroshima nuclear option.
It's almost as though TV News chooses its words to SOUND conflagrationistic (don't look that up; it's about as well-defined as nuclear option).
Posted - 11/21/2013 10:48:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
VTex is right.
Sen. Alexander has a idea.
“This action today creates a perpetual opportunity for a tyranny of the majority because it permits a majority in this body to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it. This should be called Obamacare II, because it is another example of the raw, partisan, political power for the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it.”
Obamacare II. Has a nice ring to it. Does Obamacare II come with "if you like your nuclear option, you can keep your nuclear option" promise?
Posted - 11/22/2013 12:11:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
...the over-the-top rhetoric continues. There ya go.
Posted - 11/22/2013 7:46:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
What they said then
My my, times change. What will they say when the Republicans return to the majority?
Barak Obama: April 13, 2005
“But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interests, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind”.
Joe Biden: May 10, 2005
The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It’s the one thing this country stands for. Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now but you won’t own it forever. And I pray to God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” - See more at:
Hillary Clinton: 2005
“And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there. We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate.”
Harry Reid: April 21, 2005
“The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government.” He was the one to put it on the table for the Democrats.
From Carl Levin on his vote against the bill:
Nor can I ignore the fact that Democrats have used the filibuster on many occasions to advance or protect policies we believe in. When Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives from 2003 to 2006, it was a Democratic minority in the Senate that blocked a series of bills that would have severely restricted the reproductive rights of women. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that beat back special-interest efforts to limit Americans’ right to seek justice in our courts when they are harmed by corporate or medical wrongdoing. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that stopped the nominations of some to the federal courts who we believed would not provide fair and unbiased judgment. Without the protections afforded the Senate minority, total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006. - See more at: http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/senate-floor-statement-on-proposed-nuclear-option#sthash.ZAwYQD8n.dpuf
Diane Finestein – May 10, 2005
“That is exactly what this side of the aisle is fighting for -- the rules and the traditions of the Senate. We are standing up to those in the other party who want to break the rules and precedent of the Senate. So in reality, it is those of us on this side of the aisle who are asking the majority leader to follow all the rules and precedents of the Senate, not just the one he supports or any other group of Members might support”. “Because of these fundamental concerns, for centuries there have been heated and important debates surrounding judicial nominations. Today, rather than utilizing and preserving the natural tension and conflict our Constitution created,
some in the Republican Party want to eviscerate and destroy that foundation. Blinded by political passion, some are willing to unravel our Government's fundamental principle of checks and balances to break the rules and discard Senate precedent”.
Posted - 11/22/2013 8:05:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
There is a great story
During a crucial football game after the ball was spotted the quarterback knelt down and pretended to tie his shoe. While the defense was huddled up the quarterback grabbed the ball and ran in for the winning score. The opposing coach was furious and screamed at the officials to no avail. After the game someone reminded the coach that he had run the exact same play a couple of seasons ago. The coach said "Hell no, it was entirely different! My quarterback actually DID tie his shoe!"
The only thing that has changed is the frustration on Reid and the other democrats part. I hope everyone remembers this the next time there is an opening in the Supreme Court. Now all it takes is 51 votes to confirm. A dangerous precedent has been set.
Posted - 11/22/2013 8:17:38 AM | show profile | flag this post
That's not true, blacked
This does NOT apply to Supreme Court nominees.
Posted - 11/22/2013 8:19:43 AM | show profile | flag this post
Posted - 11/22/2013 9:05:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
Democrats didn't invent the problem...
and have been pushed to fix it.
Look at the number of stalled nominees going back to Ike:
There were no filibusters on any nominees until Carter. There were two filibusters in his four years. There were two more on Reagan's nominees.
Then, none on Bush I nominees.
But Republicans filibustered 9 times on Clinton nominees.
Democrats filibustered on Bush nominees.
Republicans have filibustered 45 Obama nominees.
The rule worked as long as one side or the other didn't abuse it. A 500% increase in the number of filibusters is a sure sign of abuse by the GOP -- and it was time to change.
Posted - 11/22/2013 9:43:55 AM | show profile | flag this post
So eata sh*tload deflects the issue that "I was dead set against it because it flew in the face of the founding fathers" to "it's the right thing to do" hypocrisy shows the spin machine in high gear.
I can't wait to hear his BS when the Repubs retake the Senate.
Posted - 11/22/2013 10:22:07 AM | show profile | flag this post
VTexan, you are correct
It currently does not apply to Supreme Court nominees. However, now that the precedent has been set there is a very real concern that will be the next step.
"But both sides readily acknowledge that future majorities will cite Reid’s precedent to continue to weaken the filibuster, potentially ending the delaying tactic on all bills and Supreme Court nominees and allowing a simple majority of senators to work their will. In essence, the Senate could become a replica of the majority-rules House."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-senate-fillibuster-100243.html#ixzz2lNsQAWpQ
Posted - 11/22/2013 10:36:34 AM | show profile | flag this post
Republicans are protecting America from far-left extremists Obama wants to pack the courts with.
This isn't abuse. Not even close.
Posted - 11/22/2013 10:40:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
I'm saying that when you abuse a rule, it's time the rule is changed.
What flies in the "face of the Founders" would be to NOT change the rules to fix a problem.
Afterall, they threw out the first constitution (little "c") of the U.S. -- the Articles of Confederation -- after roughly 12 years of failure, replacing it with the Constitution (capital "C").
Further, they realized the importance of change immediately and included a mechanism to amend the constitution.
Good thing, because the Constitution was sooooo flawed when they finished, they had to tack on a list of 12 Amendments to get the states-- and the people -- to go along with it. And the people tossed out two of their suggestions.
Likewise, the Senate rules were written to be changed if they no longer worked.
When you have a minority party abusing a loophole to get their way -- you have something the authors of those rules NEVER intended them to be used for.
Time to change them -- just as the Founders wanted.
Posted - 11/22/2013 10:44:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
And cruzo (Quinn)...
The American people, by a 5,000,000 vote margin -- and by an Electoral College landslide (332-206) -- elected President Obama to make the appointments he chooses.
THAT is what the Founders wanted when they gave the President the power to choose his appointees -- and what 200+ years of tradition has followed.
The GOP got greedy, abused the rules and now have to live with the consequences -- just as Democrats will have to.
Posted - 11/22/2013 11:36:10 AM | show profile | flag this post
The Constitution states "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall 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, and which shall be established by Law:".
The President does not have total power over appointments, he must seek the advice of the Senate and must have the consent of the Senate. It does not matter how many popular or electoral votes the President received.
Posted - 11/22/2013 11:45:03 AM | show profile | flag this post
"gave the President the power to choose his appointees"
Well you're ALMOST right...but you omitted one VERY important phrase...it has PRECISELY to do with what Reid has done...and that phrase is "with the advice and consent of the senate."
Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution
(In part): He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall 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...
Please note the requirement for approval by two thirds of the senate. Reid's action MUST be litigated to determine if it meets Constitutional muster.
Now...of course...left wingers will try to argue that the two-thirds requirement only applies to treaties but the requirement, once established, applies to every part of the same sentence, whether before or after the establishment of the requirement.
Posted - 11/22/2013 11:49:19 AM | show profile | flag this post
Perfect example of what I am saying..
From the New York Times:
"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."
"From now on, voters will have to understand that presidents are likely to get their way on nominations if their party controls the Senate. "
As the President once said, "That's what elections are for". I guess we are entering a "winner take all, losers be damned" form of government.
Posted - 11/22/2013 11:59:07 AM | show profile | flag this post
You're both missing the point....
I never said the President has "absolute" power to make appointments.
And, yes, he still has to have the advice and consent of the Senate. But the SENATE can make the rules on how that vote goes forward.
That's what they did.
Citing the Constitution does nothing. This is not a Constitutional matter beyond the rules clause in Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...."
The filibuster rule was not part of the Constitution, it is a Senate rule. Further, presidential appointees need only a simple majority -- 51 of 100 votes.
Posted - 11/22/2013 12:07:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
you lack any kind of reading comprehension and a serious knowledge of American history.
You are confusing a SECTION of the Constitution with a single CLAUSE in that section.
The two-thirds requirement is for approval of treaties -- not political appointments.
Further, this had nothing to do with the Constitutional requirement of two-thirds votes for expelling a senator; overriding a presidential veto; adopting a proposed constitutional amendment; convicting an impeached official; and consenting to ratification of a treaty.
It had to do with getting rid of the rule that required 60 votes (three-fifths) to shut down a filibuster.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution about filibusters nor about the vote for cloture -- which was changed from a three-fifths vote to a simple majority.
Posted - 11/22/2013 12:12:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
etaoin, and I quote
"The American people, by a 5,000,000 vote margin -- and by an Electoral College landslide (332-206) -- elected President Obama to make the appointments he chooses.
THAT is what the Founders wanted when they gave the President the power to choose his appointees -- and what 200+ years of tradition has followed."
Seems no where in this did you indicate the need for Senate approval. Guess I forgot how to read your mind, I can only read your words.
Posted - 11/22/2013 12:20:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
And your words are wrong
"This is not a Constitutional matter"
It absolutely IS a Constitutional matter. The requirement...which is written into the Constitution and NOT subject to rule changes by the senate...is "provided two thirds of the senators present concur."
So Reid could change the rules of the senate so that only one affirmative vote was needed to stop a filibuster but THE TWO THIRDS REQUIREMENT FOR CONFIRMATION WOULD STILL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.