Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[monovillage]

All you have to do is see what Obama, Clinton, Biden, Reid and (most likely) forum members said about it in 2006 to see what a bunch of liars and hypocrites they are now to support the nuclear option in the Senate. No surprise.

 

[sportage]

Botom line here is...
It will show that the people support this move.
But as is the case in the media, the minority squeaky wheel will get all the media attention i.e. those tea party morons against everything except obstruction itself.
The people, the majority, want this.
And it is long overdue.

 

[Agent11]

I am apathetic about this, my only thought is that they had better be ready for when the same tactic is used against them.

 

[chowderhead]

I believe that elections have consequences. George Bush won his elections and so he should be allowed to select the people he wants to be in his cabinet or in his administration unless there is some serious disqualifying reason ... same thing with judges. Obama won and so he should be allowed a vote on his administration officials and judge nominations. People can vote up or down but the nominees should be allowed a vote.

 

[rudeguy]

Botom line here is...
It will show that the people support this move.
But as is the case in the media, the minority squeaky wheel will get all the media attention i.e. those tea party morons against everything except obstruction itself.
The people, the majority, want this.
And it is long overdue.

Funny

MSNBC is the biggest libtard puppet station out there and they are even calling this a bad thing

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...op-the-nuclear-bomb-so-what-happens-next?lite

 

[Jimzz]

Really? You're going to rewrite history? It's should be obvious you're incorrect since the nuclear option came up under the Bush admin, no reason for that if "just about all of them" got an up or down vote.

List of Dem filibusters on judges during Bush's office:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...f_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

Fern

I'm guessing math is not your strong point. Bush appointed 325 Judges to the bench.




So what percent of Bush's were blocked compared to Obama's?
Oh wait here's the percent's...

 

[michal1980]

I'm guessing math is not your strong point. Bush appointed 325 Judges to the bench.




So what percent of Bush's were blocked compared to Obama's?
Oh wait here's the percent's...

Maybe Obama has really bad judges. He wouldn't even know if their bad. He doesn't know anything else.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, it's pretty obvious the Repubs overplayed their hand irt filibustering. Obama now has almost a free hand in filling court vacancies as he sees fit.

I bumped into this link which in hindsight, is accurately prophetic:

http://ourfuture.org/20131120/why-senate-gop-should-fold-on-filibustering-judges-in-one-chart

 

[michal1980]

I know they CAN do it, it sounds like you would support them doing it.

The country can be ruled with a majority so long as a party wins a majority of seats in the house, a majority of seats in the senate and the presidency, all at the same time. The senates structure already gives a large advantage to less populated stated as well.

I'm fine with that.

Only because your side is in power.

One day it will change. And I hope republicans remember this day, and piss all over the dem's.

Until that day. I think the republicans should just stay home. Reid's vote sent a clear signal. Minority party - not needed in the USA.

Whats the point of senate republicans going to work now? If Dems can just pass whatever the fuck they want?

Same thing if/when republicans are in power. Why show up? You have no power to stop anything.

 

[fskimospy]

Only because your side is in power.

One day it will change. And I hope republicans remember this day, and piss all over the dem's.

Until that day. I think the republicans should just stay home. Reid's vote sent a clear signal. Minority party - not needed in the USA.

Whats the point of senate republicans going to work now? If Dems can just pass whatever the fuck they want?

Same thing if/when republicans are in power. Why show up? You have no power to stop anything.

First, you realize that's basically how it works in every other democracy on earth, right? It's also the case in the House. Should the Democrats just stay home? I do find it interesting that you think the only purpose of Republicans going to the Senate was to filibuster things though. That says a lot.

Second, as I said before I hope the filibuster is demolished in its entirety. As I already said, I find it highly likely that the Republicans would have simply eliminated filibusters for appointments as soon as it was to their advantage to do so anyway. This is evidenced by the fact that they broke their word on the filibuster agreement as soon as that was convenient for them. So really the Democrats aren't losing anything here anyway.

 

[werepossum]

First, you realize that's basically how it works in every other democracy on earth, right? It's also the case in the House. Should the Democrats just stay home? I do find it interesting that you think the only purpose of Republicans going to the Senate was to filibuster things though. That says a lot.

Second, as I said before I hope the filibuster is demolished in its entirety. As I already said, I find it highly likely that the Republicans would have simply eliminated filibusters for appointments as soon as it was to their advantage to do so anyway. This is evidenced by the fact that they broke their word on the filibuster agreement as soon as that was convenient for them. So really the Democrats aren't losing anything here anyway.

Once again, it was to their advantage during Bush. They did not do so.

 

[michal1980]

First, you realize that's basically how it works in every other democracy on earth, right? It's also the case in the House. Should the Democrats just stay home? I do find it interesting that you think the only purpose of Republicans going to the Senate was to filibuster things though. That says a lot.

Second, as I said before I hope the filibuster is demolished in its entirety. As I already said, I find it highly likely that the Republicans would have simply eliminated filibusters for appointments as soon as it was to their advantage to do so anyway. This is evidenced by the fact that they broke their word on the filibuster agreement as soon as that was convenient for them. So really the Democrats aren't losing anything here anyway.

1) I don't care about every other democracy. For over 225 years OUR democracy worked a certain way, until a fucktard like Reid decided he didn't like it anymore.

2) Did the republicans go nuclear under bush? RINO's like McCain saved the dems. Back then Reid, Obama, Clinton, all were against the nuclear option, and the republicans caved like they always do. Today, fuck history, fuck minority rights in the senate, we want our liberal agenda slammed down the throats of americans.

Just like Obamacare was rammed through congress. now judges are rammed through.

I'm glad your happy. Will you be if republicans are in power and just fill the corrects with the most extreme right wingers? maybe a few Rand Paul type judges are needed to change your mind.




This just proves that demcorats will always fight dirtier.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

First, you realize that's basically how it works in every other democracy on earth, right? It's also the case in the House. Should the Democrats just stay home? I do find it interesting that you think the only purpose of Republicans going to the Senate was to filibuster things though. That says a lot.

Second, as I said before I hope the filibuster is demolished in its entirety. As I already said, I find it highly likely that the Republicans would have simply eliminated filibusters for appointments as soon as it was to their advantage to do so anyway. This is evidenced by the fact that they broke their word on the filibuster agreement as soon as that was convenient for them. So really the Democrats aren't losing anything here anyway.

Not yet, but when it does happen remember that like the Republicans before you, you asked for it.

 

[Fern]

I'm guessing math is not your strong point. Bush appointed 325 Judges to the bench.




So what percent of Bush's were blocked compared to Obama's?
Oh wait here's the percent's...

You said that "just about all of them" got an up or down vote. You were incorrect.

How many of Obama's appointees have been blocked?

This is what I'm currently finding (note: these appear to be all confirmation votes, not just judges):

McConnell defended himself from charges of obstruction during a July interview on Meet the Press. "The president has had 1,540 of his nominations confirmed, only four defeated."

McConnell’s numbers weren’t off, but his count ignores nominees who withdrew before a vote, including 38 people who withdrew after facing opposition. The numbers also don’t account for people who were never formally nominated because of early opposition. We rated his statement Half True.

and

• Obama complained during a June press conference that his nominees were being subjected to undue delays. "My judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor," he said.

That’s true if you count waiting time from committee approval to confirmation, but not if you count the full period from nomination to confirmation. As it turns out, the average wait for George W. Bush’s circuit court nominees was actually longer from nomination to confirmation. We rated his statement Half True.

In any case you're wrong about the Dems allowing votes for almost all Bush's nominations. It may be that Bush just dropped them and moved on to nominees who the Dems would approve, whereas Obama is being obstinate (like trying to pack the DC circuit with 3 judges at once).

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

1) I don't care about every other democracy. For over 225 years OUR democracy worked a certain way, until a fucktard like Reid decided he didn't like it anymore.

This is just factually wrong. First, filibusters didn't exist at all for the first 70 years or so that the Senate existed. Even after that they were almost unheard of. The current process of near constant filibustering is actually the exception, not the rule.

Additionally, you appear to think that the rules governing filibusters have been static. This is really wrong as well. Not only have the rules of what can and cannot be filibustered changed over time (think budget reconciliation), but also the numbers needed to break a filibuster have been repeatedly lowered. So... yeah.

2) Did the republicans go nuclear under bush? RINO's like McCain saved the dems. Back then Reid, Obama, Clinton, all were against the nuclear option, and the republicans caved like they always do. Today, fuck history, fuck minority rights in the senate, we want our liberal agenda slammed down the throats of americans.

Just like Obamacare was rammed through congress. now judges are rammed through.

This is also a pretty serious misunderstanding of history. The Republicans didn't cave, they got confirmation of more than half of the judges at issue. It's also interesting that you're both angry at the Republicans for not invoking the 'nuclear option' AND you're saying that it's an assault on minority rights, and history, and all that. Pretty impressive incoherence there.

I'm glad your happy. Will you be if republicans are in power and just fill the corrects with the most extreme right wingers? maybe a few Rand Paul type judges are needed to change your mind.

This just proves that demcorats will always fight dirtier.

Of course I won't be happy if they do that, but that's life. Our government will function better once this nonsense is stopped. The Republicans have simply been too irresponsible with the filibuster.

 

[ivwshane]

Gotta love the "I hope the reps abuse this new power when they regain control" talk, god forbid you actually hold the reps accountable for their actions that lead up it this shit.

Party before country and I'm right righties?!

 

[michal1980]

Gotta love the "I hope the reps abuse this new power when they regain control" talk, god forbid you actually hold the reps accountable for their actions that lead up it this shit.

Party before country and I'm right righties?!

LOL. That's rich coming from the supporter of the party that used the nuclear option.

 

[fskimospy]

In any case you're wrong about the Dems allowing votes for almost all Bush's nominations. It may be that Bush just dropped them and moved on to nominees who the Dems would approve, whereas Obama is being obstinate (like trying to pack the DC circuit with 3 judges at once).

Fern

That's not what court packing is.

Additionally, it wouldn't make sense that Bush was being conciliatory while Obama is being obstinate, as shown by your quote. If Bush's average time to confirmation is longer than Obama's, that means that he was holding on even longer than Obama has in many cases.

 

[Incorruptible]

Botom line here is...
It will show that the people support this move.
But as is the case in the media, the minority squeaky wheel will get all the media attention i.e. those tea party morons against everything except obstruction itself.
The people, the majority, want this.
And it is long overdue.

The only morons are you and the liberals. The Tea Party defends the US Constitution so it's nice to see how you view the Constitution.

 

[werepossum]

Gotta love the "I hope the reps abuse this new power when they regain control" talk, god forbid you actually hold the reps accountable for their actions that lead up it this shit.

Party before country and I'm right righties?!

Of course, federalizing health care with outright bribes for straight party support against bipartisan opposition and thereby taking away health insurance for millions of Americans was a shining example of country before party, right?

 

[michal1980]

The amount of dem flip flopping going on right now is epic.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL. That's rich coming from the supporter of the party that used the nuclear option.

Read my first post in this thread moron. I'm still waiting to hear a solution from you guys.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why are people afraid of simple majority? This is a Republic, elections should have consequences. This country is ungovernable if a super majority is required.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course, federalizing health care with outright bribes for straight party support against bipartisan opposition and thereby taking away health insurance for millions of Americans was a shining example of country before party, right?

Try again hack.

 

[First]

Of course, federalizing health care with outright bribes for straight party support against bipartisan opposition and thereby taking away health insurance for millions of Americans was a shining example of country before party, right?

Significant legislation has been achieved with far more scandalous and questionable tactics. Read up on your history, old man.