Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[ivwshane]

Obama on the nuclear option in 2005

http://obamaspeeches.com/010-The-Nuclear-Option-Obama-Speech.htm



oh how sweet it is that these two fools flip flopped. I wish the LMSM would point that out. But so far none of them have.

It has been pointed out (you don't see it because your source for news sucks), thanks for repeating it multiple times in this thread. You can now wipe the foam off of your mouth.

 

[rudeguy]

This is only going to make things worse

-Barack Obama 2005


http://www.gop.com/news/research/the-hypocrisy-is-nuclear/

 

[rudeguy]

I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing

The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play

-Joe Biden 2005

 

[Genx87]

Geez, so you mean elections now will really have consequences, instead of a minority party basically nullifying said election.

Oh my god, the world is coming to an end.

Unless we vote 100% for a single party. We by definition dont want a one party rule or dictatorship. Meaning we desire some form of gridlock and not a rubberstamp.

That said, even wtihin our current system elections have consequences. Or have you forgot the last 13 years? Two presidents, with their parties having long term consequences on this country. I question why anybody would want to make it easier for these power hungry assholes to fuck this country up any more.

 

[OCGuy]

Unfortunately the pendulum will swing, and (D)s will regret this.

 

[brycejones]

Someone else posted this already but it sums up why even Dems that were against this voted for it.

Now come on if Obama had nominated good god fearing Americans instead of marxist-communist Muslim sympathizers than we all know the numbers would be that bad.

 

[rudeguy]

The Filibuster Is Far From A Procedural Gimmick. It’s Part Of The Fabric Of This Institution … Senators Have Used The Filibuster To Stand Up To Popular Presidents, To Block Legislation, And, Yes, Even, As I’ve Stated, To Stall Executive Nominees.

Harry Reid 2005

 

[rudeguy]

If You Cannot Get 60 Votes For A Nominee, Maybe You Should Think About Who You Are Sending To Us To Be Confirmed

Hillary Clinton 2005

 

[fskimospy]

Unless we vote 100% for a single party. We by definition dont want a one party rule or dictatorship. Meaning we desire some form of gridlock and not a rubberstamp.

That said, even wtihin our current system elections have consequences. Or have you forgot the last 13 years? Two presidents, with their parties having long term consequences on this country. I question why anybody would want to make it easier for these power hungry assholes to fuck this country up any more.

So what is your alternative to this action? How do we staff this court?

 

[dank69]

Hillary Clinton 2005

Wow that's great a bunch of quotes defending the use of the filibuster to block unqualified nominees. Too bad the GOP decided to use it to block qualified nominees. Guess all those Dems are idiots for not being able to predict how low the GOP would be willing to go.

 

[D-Man]

Obama needs to get his arms stretched it would be easier for him to reach across the isle and make comprises. I does not take a genius to see what happens when Democrats by themselves have 100% say. Note Obama Care. President Obama needs to learn the definition of Opposition Party. Think about this if you have a friend who opposes your political views do you call them Terrorists Jehadist Obstructionist to name a few and in the next breath ask them to jump start your car.

 

[ivwshane]

So what is your alternative to this action? How do we staff this court?

He already said he doesn't know. Just like every other issue, the right is always quick to oppose but they never seem to have solutions of their own, let alone actually put those solutions into action.

So long as the outcome to the status quo is what he wants and doesn't give the "opposition" what they want, he doesn't care about any solutions.

 

[rudeguy]

Wow that's great a bunch of quotes defending the use of the filibuster to block unqualified nominees. Too bad the GOP decided to use it to block qualified nominees. Guess all those Dems are idiots for not being able to predict how low the GOP would be willing to go.

I'm not twisting or adding anything here...unlike some.

These are their own words.

 

[rudeguy]

Now come on if Obama had nominated good god fearing Americans instead of marxist-communist Muslim sympathizers than we all know the numbers would be that bad.

I mean...why would anyone need experience in the field they are nominated for? Its worked so well with Obamacare!

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This doesn't make any sense. You have stated the Republicans' position on this court is that no additional judges should be appointed to it because it doesn't have a large enough caseload. You don't appear to be disputing this. No additional judges means no additional judges.

Do you want me to supply a quote about them saying the court doesn't need any additional judges and that's why they won't confirm Obama's nominees? You already agree that's their position.

So then I take it that you're in agreement that Republican leadership was specifically referring to the DC Circuit Court when they said they plan block all nominations and that they were not saying they intended to block all Obama nominations. Thank you for clarifying this point.

 

[Paul98]

I don't like this, but I also don't like what's going on now.

If both sides were to do things in good faith, weren't blinded by ideology and their own ego this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[fskimospy]

So then I take it that you're in agreement that Republican leadership was specifically referring to the DC Circuit Court when they said they plan block all nominations and that they were not saying they intended to block all Obama nominations. Thank you for clarifying this point.

Uhmm, yes. That point did not need to be clarified as I have repeatedly mentioned that they refused to staff this particular court in this thread.

I fail to see how the Republicans only refusing to staff certain courts changes the argument in any way. It is the most important appeals court in the country.

 

[Paul98]

Problems always arise when one side starts to abuse it's power, you end up with the power hungry abusing things till they are broken. While you have the rational people seeing the problems, while those blinded by their party affiliation will see nothing wrong.

 

[First]

Excellent decision, though a tough one at that. Senate is a very important institution, and thankfully the legislative filibuster remains intact.

Hopefully, in a more responsible future era of Republican politicians (and/or Dems if they ever achieve such fevered Tea Party furor), we'll be able to reinstate this particular filibuster. Assuming it doesn't actually work out in stoking more bipartisanship on the part of Repubs, which it may actually make worse. Hard to know, might take a 2014 and/or 2016 shellacking before they wake up and realize we're not a white country anymore.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Um, the Democrats absolutely refused to grant votes to many Bush nominees and the Pubbies did not go nuclear. You are of course free to pretend this didn't happen.

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)

I too. The Senate can have whatever rules they wish as long as they do not prevent it from carrying out its Constitutional duties. Advice and consent is a Constitutional duty; therefore nominees should not be subject to filibuster.

Funny how Eskimospy was on the other side of the debate back then. Every issue, every time, whatever contortions are required.

The might say that, but have they actually done it?

Reid said the nuclear option would destroy the country, he said he was against changing the rules.

Now he's ok with it?

When was he wrong? Why do you support his destruction of the USA?

Destroying the country is like anything else in D.C. - both sides are willing as long as they get to control it.

 

[Genx87]

So what is your alternative to this action? How do we staff this court?

Is this court not staffed? I am seeing 14 judges listed on their website.

I think this is a rather minor use of the nuclear option. But it is delicious watching the quotes from democrats from 05. And my response to Halo went beyond judicial nominee's. Why people would want to make it easier for these douchebags to grant themselves more power makes little sense to me.

 

[Paul98]

As with all these things, it's the people of this country that should be scared.

 

[rudeguy]

As with all these things, it's the people of this country that should be scared.

:thumbsup:

I gave up on the repubs, they are just as bad as the dems now. Its like once they get to DC, they all crawl into the same cesspool and rot. None of these people are about us, let alone put our best interests first.

Fire them all.

 

[michal1980]

It has been pointed out (you don't see it because your source for news sucks), thanks for repeating it multiple times in this thread. You can now wipe the foam off of your mouth.

your post bot program must be broken, your rip doesn't make any sense.


what has been pointed out? that the msm is in the tank for libs? doubt it.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, the Democrats absolutely refused to grant votes to many Bush nominees and the Pubbies did not go nuclear. You are of course free to pretend this didn't happen.

Actually the Republicans threatened to go nuclear due to the Democrats filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. This was averted when both sides agreed to approve almost all the nominees under contention as well as limit the use of filibusters to 'extraordinary circumstances'. Unless you can somehow argue that spending a few hundred thousand dollars on judicial salaries that the Republicans (falsely) claim aren't needed counts as 'extraordinary circumstances', the Republicans have reneged on this deal.

It's frankly bizarre that you would think people are pretending that the previous judicial controversy didn't happen considering the substantial volume of posts from me talking about the very deal that ended the previous controversy. I guess we're just showing that people are indeed free to pretend things didn't happen, huh?