Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, they have actually done it. That's why this happened.

So again, now that we have established that Obama cannot nominate a person the Republicans would support as they have explicitly stated that they oppose all nominees, how do we staff the court?

Grassley said the reason for not fully staffing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was that their caseload wasn't large enough to justify eleven judges. Please link quote where Republican leadership explicitly stated they oppose all nominees.

 

[michal1980]

Nice job of not answering the question.

I don't think it will destroy the country. I'm pretty sure it's been several years since I made it clear that I support the abolition of the filibuster in its entirety.

your not answering any of my questions.

Reid said in 2005 that he would not do this. He was against the nuclear option.

Are you going to call him out on his hypocrisy?

Are you going to call him out on being a liar?

 

[OrByte]

The fight is mainly over the DC Circuit court.

HELL YEAH Republicans don't want Obama appointing judges to the DC Circuit court. That is a very powerful court.

congrats to the Dems for having the balls to go through with this.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

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

In his speech, Obama noted that in the few decades before he took office, about 20 nominees were filibustered. Since he took office, close to 30 judicial and political nominees have had their nominations blocked.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199.html?hp=t1

 

[fskimospy]

your not answering any of my questions.

Reid said in 2005 that he would not do this. He was against the nuclear option.

Are you going to call him out on his hypocrisy?

Are you going to call him out on being a liar?

Reid changed his mind, in my opinion he has now done the correct thing. I would like it if he went further and abolished the filibuster in its entirety.

I'm sure Harry Reid has said many lies and done many hypocritical things in his time in the Senate. None of that changes the fact that this was the right thing to do.

So anyways, back to my question. If this was the wrong thing to do, how should Obama have gone about staffing the court?

 

[OrByte]

your not answering any of my questions.

Reid said in 2005 that he would not do this. He was against the nuclear option.

Are you going to call him out on his hypocrisy?

Are you going to call him out on being a liar?

circumstances change.

I think republicans blocking federal work from being done has alot to do with why Reid changed course on this issue.

I think its a good thing until someone can prove otherwise. For now all I hear out of repubs is sour fucking grapes.

I think too bad for you.

That being said, the dems will get their turn at sour grapes...if the Repubs can ever win majorities or the WH ever again.

 

[dank69]

It's brilliant. This will give Presidents more power to leverage their party to stuff the third branch with his parties favorites.

You're a relatively level headed guy. What choice do Dems have when GOP blocks everything not because they should but only because they can? Blame falls squarely on GOP for abusing the rule and pretending the GOP wouldn't do the same if the roles were reversed is lunacy. If the roles were reversed I would be blaming Dems. Governing isn't a pissing contest and it's time for the GOP to stop treating it as such.

 

[Genx87]

Congresses low approval rating is due to their disfunction, one of the senates primary functions is to confirm or deny a presidential nominee, they have done neither or have taken a ridiculously long time to do either.

While I'm not for using the nuclear option, I really don't see any alternative.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/21/do-obama-nominees-face-stiffer-senate-opposition/?dsk=y

I suspect if you were to poll an avg citizen they wouldnt frame govt dysfunction around a govt shutdown and legislative gridlock. Both of which are outside the scope of this nuclear option.

 

[OrByte]

"In his speech, Obama noted that in the few decades before he took office, about 20 nominees were filibustered. Since he took office, close to 30 judicial and political nominees have had their nominations blocked."

IS that true?!

 

[ivwshane]

Grassley said the reason for not fully staffing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was that their caseload wasn't large enough to justify eleven judges. Please link quote where Republican leadership explicitly stated they oppose all nominees.

How does the kool-aid taste?

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2013/11/memo-responding-false-claims-dc-circuit-court-s-workload

Or do you not believe the claim?


From June
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...589b186-ce22-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_blog.html

 

[Genx87]

"In his speech, Obama noted that in the few decades before he took office, about 20 nominees were filibustered. Since he took office, close to 30 judicial and political nominees have had their nominations blocked."

IS that true?!

It is coming out of Obama's mouth, a grain of salt the size of Obamacares fail needs to be taken. Given the sheer amount of nominations each president makes. I would be really surprised if only 20 were blocked over the course of decades and several presidents.

 

[Jimzz]

"In his speech, Obama noted that in the few decades before he took office, about 20 nominees were filibustered. Since he took office, close to 30 judicial and political nominees have had their nominations blocked."

IS that true?!

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

 

[OrByte]

How does the kool-aid taste?

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2013/11/memo-responding-false-claims-dc-circuit-court-s-workload

Or do you not believe the claim?

DC Circuit is practically the most important Court in the country other than the Supreme Court

Republican lawmakers are banking on their constituents being too stupid to understand this or care...

fact is...the GOP is scared shitless that Obama can appoint SC and now Circuit Court judges.

 

[OrByte]

It is coming out of Obama's mouth, a grain of salt the size of Obamacares fail needs to be taken. Given the sheer amount of nominations each president makes. I would be really surprised if only 20 were blocked over the course of decades and several presidents.

That is why I'm asking...and I'm too lazy to google it myself

 

[Genx87]

That is why I'm asking...and I'm too lazy to google it myself

According to whitehouse.gov Obama has about 1450 nominations of which I think 1271 have been confirmed. Now multiply that out over at least 4 administrations. If only 20 were blocked that is a really really low %.

 

[fskimospy]

Grassley said the reason for not fully staffing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was that their caseload wasn't large enough to justify eleven judges. Please link quote where Republican leadership explicitly stated they oppose all nominees.

Again, I doubt anyone is so naive as to believe that the reason for Republicans blocking all nominees to that court is due to the court's workload. First, the court's workload is about the same today as it has been for a long time and second the idea that the Republicans would risk the judicial filibuster to save a few hundred grand is preposterous.

Secondly, you answered your own question in your post. The Republicans are claiming that no additional judges should be appointed to the court. Sure they are saying that it's due to the caseload, but inherent in that argument is that they oppose all nominees to that court.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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

The above graph is horseshit.

http://judicialnominations.org/statistics

 

[dank69]

"In his speech, Obama noted that in the few decades before he took office, about 20 nominees were filibustered. Since he took office, close to 30 judicial and political nominees have had their nominations blocked."

IS that true?!

Here are the numbers:

From 1967 to 2012, Senate majority leaders have sought to cut off debate over an executive nominee 55 times, with 23 instances occurring during the Obama presidency, according to the Congressional Research Service. During that same period, cloture was invoked 67 times for judicial nominees, 31 of those during the Obama administration.

 

[dank69]

The above graph is horseshit.

http://judicialnominations.org/statistics

Your graph is only judicial candidates. Where is your chart for executive candidates?

 

[JManInPhoenix]

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

Concur. Whatever side is the minority will be pissing & moaning. The reps for now, the dems when they become the minority...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Again, I doubt anyone is so naive as to believe that the reason for Republicans blocking all nominees to that court is due to the court's workload. First, the court's workload is about the same today as it has been for a long time and second the idea that the Republicans would risk the judicial filibuster to save a few hundred grand is preposterous.

Secondly, you answered your own question in your post. The Republicans are claiming that no additional judges should be appointed to the court. Sure they are saying that it's due to the caseload, but inherent in that argument is that they oppose all nominees to that court.

Again, please link the quote as I would like to understand the context in which it was made.

 

[Incorruptible]

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.

That's the problem with the MSM. They protect the liberals and try to avoid going after them.

 

[michal1980]

Obama on the nuclear option in 2005

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

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.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, please link the quote as I would like to understand the context in which it was made.

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.

 

[hal2kilo]

Concur. Whatever side is the minority will be pissing & moaning. The reps for now, the dems when they become the minority...

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.