Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[hal2kilo]

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.

Opposition of course, but nulification?

McChinless announced at the onset of the Obama admin that their number one goal was to make Obama a one term president. In all my years of following politics I have never heard an opposition party start off by basically saying not only are we not going to work with him, we are going fight this new president with everything we got. And they went on to prove it with their actions.

So yes the GOP brought this on themselves.

We all in the long run will probably regret it but the GOP really gave the Dems no choice.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Wouldn't this embolden future presidents and senators to bring in the most leftist or rightist judicial nominees? When the minority party has no say at all on these lifetime appointed judges... In other words moderate judges are going to be a rarer breed in the future...

 

[michal1980]

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.

no you didn't.

you tried to imply that republicans were blocking all nominations.

 

[Genx87]

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.

As opposed to somebody like you who hasnt seen a govt program or expansion of power you couldnt get down on your knees and open wide to defend?

Now here is a real awakening for you. Conservatives by nature are resistant to change. It amazes me how progressives dont seem to understand that underlying facet of thinking and we should be ashamed of it. So thinking the status quo is fine fits right in with my ideology.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

The court is not fully staffed, and many of those judges are senior judges that do not work a normal load or have all the same rights as full time judges. In fact, the court is down to only 8 of those judges and currently the court is so small that it is almost impossible for a case to get an en banc review even in the case of egregious errors. That's a really big problem.

 

[rudeguy]

Opposition of course, but nulification?

McChinless announced at the onset of the Obama admin that their number one goal was to make Obama a one term president. In all my years of following politics I have never heard an opposition party start off by basically saying not only are we not going to work with him, we are going fight this new president with everything we got. And they went on to prove it with their actions.

So yes the GOP brought this on themselves.

We all in the long run will probably regret it but the GOP really gave the Dems no choice.

So how long should they wait before they aren't willing to work with the opposition? How long before they won't budge at all and force the opposition to surrender or else?

 

[fskimospy]

As opposed to somebody like you who hasnt seen a govt program or expansion of power you couldnt get down on your knees and open wide to defend?

Now here is a real awakening for you. Conservatives by nature are resistant to change. It amazes me how progressives dont seem to understand that underlying facet of thinking and we should be ashamed of it. So thinking the status quo is fine fits right in with my ideology.

I would argue that a party simply refusing to allow the president to staff courts because they think it would alter the ideological balance is a far greater and far more radical change from governing norms than this is. There is nothing conservative about the Republicans' behavior here at all.

 

[rudeguy]

Wouldn't this embolden future presidents and senators to bring in the most leftist or rightist judicial nominees? When the minority party has no say at all on these lifetime appointed judges... In other words moderate judges are going to be a rarer breed in the future...

Can you recall the last truly moderate judge? I know I'm a simple guy...just a worker bee...but I always thought judges ruled on the law and were not supposed to be partisan.

That stopped a very long time ago.

 

[fskimospy]

no you didn't.

you tried to imply that republicans were blocking all nominations.

False.

My very first post in this thread:

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'.

Learn to read.

 

[werepossum]

This is only going to make things worse

-Barack Obama 2005

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

Nah, this changes nothing. Obama has an army of idiots willing and eager to claim that (A) that clearly wasn't what he meant, and (B) anyway this situation is clearly different, so opposing it then was valiant and logical just as supporting it now is valiant and logical.

 

[hal2kilo]

Gee, I don't know how the mind of a modern conservative Republican works.

 

[Genx87]

Opposition of course, but nulification?

Why not? It is the process intentionally setup by our founding fathers to slow down change.
I am not going to get all up in arms over a few nominations out of over 1500 not getting through. Honestly, through the course of history no president has had their nominations filled at a 100% clip. Some of it is political(shocker, a process politcized is slowed down by politics), and some of it is simply due to time.

McChinless announced at the onset of the Obama admin that their number one goal was to make Obama a one term president. In all my years of following politics I have never heard an opposition party start off by basically saying not only are we not going to work with him, we are going fight this new president with everything we got. And they went on to prove it with their actions.

Oh please the democrats after the embarassing defeat at the hands of Bush in 04 basically went about the same thing. But who cares? The underlying policies of Bush and the Republicans willingness to support him destroyed them by the end of his term. And their stated goal of making Obama a one term president has also failed and hurt them in the process. Democrats have to be loving the Republican fail. Because with all of democrat shenanigans if Republicans werent 98% retarded democrats would be in deep shit from their flawed policies.

So yes the GOP brought this on themselves.

I agree 110%.

 

[D-Man]

Gee, I don't know how the mind of a modern conservative Republican works.

Well for a start get your mind working.

 

[werepossum]

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?

Your comment was "Does anyone here actually believe that the Republicans wouldn't have eliminated the judicial filibuster the minute it significantly impeded their own judicial nominations? "
Bush's judicial nominations were significantly impeded. The Republicans negotiated with the Democrats, something you routinely reference as hostage-taking when sides are flipped, and gave up some of their nominees without hearings to get others moved forward. What you said WILL happen DID happen; what you said the Pubbies WOULD do in such a case, they did not.

Every issue, every thread.

 

[fskimospy]

Why not? It is the process intentionally setup by our founding fathers to slow down change.
I am not going to get all up in arms over a few nominations out of over 15000 not getting through. Honestly, through the course of history no president has had their nominations filled at a 100% clip. Some of it is political(shocker, a process politcized is slowed down by politics), and some of it is simply due to time.

This was not the process set up by the founders, as the filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution.

 

[Matt1970]

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

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

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

This is only going to make things worse - -Barack Obama 2005

What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster - if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate - then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above an "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones wearing our party label. - Obama 2005

"But Democrats contend that the Republicans are essentially breaking the rules to change the rules. "If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it," "The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington." - Harry M. Reid 2005.

Reid changed his mind

Did his mind change, or did the majority party in the Senate change?

This is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

3 vacancies of 11 judgeships. Grassley says court workload is low and filling these vacancies is not needed at this time. Right or wrong...this is his reasoning.

 

[Genx87]

This was not the process set up by the founders, as the filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution.

You know I am talking about the process and not senate rules. I am discussing the role of congress to approve judicial nominations from the executive branch.

 

[fskimospy]

Your comment was "Does anyone here actually believe that the Republicans wouldn't have eliminated the judicial filibuster the minute it significantly impeded their own judicial nominations? "
Bush's judicial nominations were significantly impeded. The Republicans negotiated with the Democrats, something you routinely reference as hostage-taking when sides are flipped, and gave up some of their nominees without hearings to get others moved forward. What you said WILL happen DID happen; what you said the Pubbies WOULD do in such a case, they did not.

Every issue, every thread.

This is again a truly bizarre argument you're making, I can only assume it's due to a complete failure to comprehend what you're reading.

I'll make this as simple as I can.

1.) There were two sides to the deal, fundamentally the majority side and the minority side. During the Bush administration the minority side abided by their pledge not to filibuster nominees and the majority side abided by their pledge not to remove the filibuster.

2.) In the Obama administration the sides switched. The Republicans became the minority side. They have chosen to no longer abide by the rules of the deal that they brokered in 2005. Due to the fact that they have broken one part of the deal as soon as it became convenient, it seems highly likely that they would now break the other part of the deal when it becomes convenient. That is pretty basic logic.

As for 'hostage taking', that's pretty funny. Either you don't understand what negotiation is or you don't understand what hostage taking is. It could be both.

 

[michal1980]

This is again a truly bizarre argument you're making, I can only assume it's due to a complete failure to comprehend what you're reading.

I'll make this as simple as I can.

1.) There were two sides to the deal, fundamentally the majority side and the minority side. During the Bush administration the minority side abided by their pledge not to filibuster nominees and the majority side abided by their pledge not to remove the filibuster.

2.) In the Obama administration the sides switched. The Republicans became the minority side. They have chosen to no longer abide by the rules of the deal that they brokered in 2005. Due to the fact that they have broken one part of the deal as soon as it became convenient, it seems highly likely that they would now break the other part of the deal when it becomes convenient. That is pretty basic logic.

As for 'hostage taking', that's pretty funny. Either you don't understand what negotiation is or you don't understand what hostage taking is. It could be both.

you flip flop like harry.

 

[monovillage]

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

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

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

This is only going to make things worse - -Barack Obama 2005

What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster - if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate - then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above an "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones wearing our party label. - Obama 2005

"But Democrats contend that the Republicans are essentially breaking the rules to change the rules. "If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it," "The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington." - Harry M. Reid 2005.


Did his mind change, or did the majority party in the Senate change?

This is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.

What else did you expect from the lying garbage Democrats in Washington and their lying supporters here?

 

[waggy]

i think this is a bad mistake on the Dems part.

both sides are actinging like children. though the dems just took it one step farther.

 

[fskimospy]

3 vacancies of 11 judgeships. Grassley says court workload is low and filling these vacancies is not needed at this time. Right or wrong...this is his reasoning.

And that reasoning is transparently dishonest. Grassley voted to fill the court all the way up to 11 seats under the Bush administration and the court's workload was the same as it is today.

I think it's pretty obvious that the reason for it is that they don't want to alter the court's ideological balance. They are also on the record saying that. They went so far as to make the ridiculous argument that filling vacancies was 'packing the court'.

 

[fskimospy]

You know I am talking about the process and not senate rules. I am discussing the role of congress to approve judicial nominations from the executive branch.

If you're not talking about the Senate rules then nothing has changed. The Senate's approval is still required for Obama's nominees, same as it always was. The ONLY change is the Senate's rules.

 

[Matt1970]

During the Bush administration the minority side abided by their pledge not to filibuster nominees and the majority side abided by their pledge not to remove the filibuster.

And we all know how well people have been sticking to their pledges lately.