Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[Moonbeam]

I can't tell, the folk who forced the issue or the folk who voted for it? What do you think?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579211881413579404

 

[fskimospy]

It's hard to see what choice the Democrats had here. The Republicans said that they would not confirm Obama's judges to the DC Court of Appeals regardless of who he nominated. The original deal was only to filibuster judges in 'extraordinary circumstances' and there is no way a rational person can deem the mere existence of an empty seat an 'extraordinary circumstance'.

Due to this clear breach of the prior deal on judicial nominations there's no reason to believe that the Republicans wouldn't break the other half of it if given the opportunity. If the other side won't abide by the agreement, it's time to scrap the agreement.

 

[Jimzz]

When Dems held Bushs nominees they talked about it and allowed a up or down vote or just about all of them.

When the Reps held Obama's nominees they said it was not about the person and no they would not allow a vote.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Another power grab by the morons currently in charge that will come back to bite them in the long run. BTW, isn't there a rule about changing the rules??? Hmm...

 

[xBiffx]

What a clusterfuck this would have been when Bush was president and the senate was (R) controlled.

Funny though because the same dipshits that voted for this will be the first to bitch and complain when its used against them.

But w/e right, the ends justify the means. Its all about what I want right fucking now.

 

[fskimospy]

Another power grab by the morons currently in charge that will come back to bite them in the long run. BTW, isn't there a rule about changing the rules??? Hmm...

Do you agree that the President has not only the right, but the duty to fill judicial vacancies?

If so, how would you suggest Obama go about filling the vacancies in the DC Court of Appeals?

 

[fskimospy]

What a clusterfuck this would have been when Bush was president and the senate was (R) controlled.

Funny though because the same dipshits that voted for this will be the first to bitch and complain when its used against them.

Serious question, what do you think should be done instead?

 

[michal1980]

If the R's pulled this off under bush there would be hell to pay. the lmsm would be going wall to wall with 'the republicans pulled the nuclear option, limit democrat's powers'.

With the dem's pulling this, its going to be a footnote.

 

[fskimospy]

If the R's pulled this off under bush there would be hell to pay. the lmsm would be going wall to wall with 'the republicans pulled the nuclear option, limit democrat's powers'.

With the dem's pulling this, its going to be a footnote.

It's currently on the front page of the NY Times in large font.

http://www.nytimes.com/

You guys truly live in a fantasy world.

 

[xBiffx]

Serious question, what do you think should be done instead?

Nothing. And I've got 225 years of precedent to back me up.

 

[michal1980]

It's currently on the front page of the NY Times in large font.

http://www.nytimes.com/

You guys truly live in a fantasy world.

it will be gone shortly.

Again it will just blow over, by the end of the weekend, nothing but silence. There would have been weeks of coverage if the republicans do this. Surprised the dem's didn't do this on friday. Then no one would hear about it.

Besides, your masters at the dailykos are saying this is the republicans fault.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...s-itself-up-What-the-hell-where-they-thinking

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing. And I've got 225 years of precedent to back me up.

FYI, the filibuster and the cloture vote have not existed for 225 years.

Regardless, your position is that Obama should simply not be able to staff the courts? How is that possibly a good option?

 

[michal1980]

Do you agree that the President has not only the right, but the duty to fill judicial vacancies?

If so, how would you suggest Obama go about filling the vacancies in the DC Court of Appeals?

and the senate has the right to consent? Its not a monarchy, or dictatorship we live under. I know Obama likes to act like king.

I hope this bits the dems, and bits them hard.

 

[fskimospy]

and the senate has the right to consent? Its not a monarchy, or dictatorship we live under. I know Obama likes to act like king.

I hope this bits the dems, and bits them hard.

And look, the Senate is consenting!

The question goes to you, how would you suggest Obama go about filling the vacancies in the DC Court of Appeals?

 

[Brainonska511]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25042482
"Republican Senator Chuck Grassley told the Washington Post earlier that if the motion passed, his party would retaliate whenever it regained control of the chamber."

That sounds like a real grown-up way to run the government.

 

[xBiffx]

FYI, the filibuster and the cloture vote have not existed for 225 years.

Regardless, your position is that Obama should simply not be able to staff the courts? How is that possibly a good option?

This rule has existed for 225 years.

My position is that every President should live within the rules. If you are unable to get a nominee approved by the Senate, pick a new nominee until you do. Find one that passes muster within the rules. That's how checks and balances work. Simple as that.

Nice attempt at a strawman, btw.

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25042482
"Republican Senator Chuck Grassley told the Washington Post earlier that if the motion passed, his party would retaliate whenever it regained control of the chamber."

That sounds like a real grown-up way to run the government.

So does changing the rules whenever they don't suit you. Sounds like playground antics, can't win, just cheat.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25042482
"Republican Senator Chuck Grassley told the Washington Post earlier that if the motion passed, his party would retaliate whenever it regained control of the chamber."

That sounds like a real grown-up way to run the government.

Does anyone here actually believe that the Republicans wouldn't have eliminated the judicial filibuster the minute it significantly impeded their own judicial nominations? Their 'retaliation' is simply doing what they were going to do anyway.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4458735

Reid on the nuclear option in 2008 "As long as I'm leader the answer is no, I think we should just forget that,that is a black chapter in the history of the senate I hope we never ever get to that again. I really do believe it will ruin the country"

 

[Brainonska511]

So does changing the rules whenever they don't suit you.

So when the system is clearly broken, we should just keep things the way they are. That makes sense. Positions need to be filled for government to function correctly. To deliberately block nominees which they have no problem with, the Republicans have clearly shown that they don't care about running the government. They just want to continually throw a wrench in the system to make Obama look bad.

 

[fskimospy]

This rule has existed for 225 years.

My position is that every President should live within the rules. If you are unable to get a nominee approved by the Senate, pick a new nominee until you do. Find one that passes muster within the rules. That's how checks and balances work. Simple as that.

Nice attempt at a strawman, btw.

Republicans have said that they do not oppose Obama's nominees for this court based on their qualifications, judicial philosophy, whatever. They said they would filibuster all appointments to this court, regardless of who was appointed. Therefore it is literally impossible for Obama to pick a nominee that would be approved.

My argument is not a straw man. I'm not sure if you know what that is, but my question exactly describes the current situation. Republicans are saying that Obama is not allowed to staff this court.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Do you agree that the President has not only the right, but the duty to fill judicial vacancies?

If so, how would you suggest Obama go about filling the vacancies in the DC Court of Appeals?

He has the duty as defined by the constitution. But the Senate also has the duty to confirm, as defined in the constitution.

The Dems howled about tyranny of the majority when the reps threatened the nuclear option. How times have changed. Can't wait to see how they'll howl should the reps pull out a 51-49 majority next year.

 

[michal1980]

Reid also told republicans how to fight back..

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/16/nation/na-reid16

"If Republicans change rules to guarantee approval of Bush's controversial judicial nominees, the party will block chamber business."

I hope the GOP fights back, just like Reid said he would.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm mostly fine with this.

whether we're talking Bush or Obama nominees, I think any appointment to a lower court or federal office deserves a swift up or down vote other than the most exceptional of circumstances (eg: if Obama tried to appoint his dog to be Defense Secretary, I'd be OK with a filibuster on that)

 

[xBiffx]

So when the system is clearly broken, we should just keep things the way they are. That makes sense. Positions need to be filled for government to function correctly. To deliberately block nominees which they have no problem with, the Republicans have clearly shown that they don't care about running the government. They just want to continually throw a wrench in the system to make Obama look bad.

So all of a sudden its broken because one side doesn't get their way? What's changed that its broken now where it wasn't before when the same shit happened?