Senate goes Nuclear. Who is to blame.

[First]

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

Wow, those are some scary numbers for Repubs, especially if they (very likely) miss out on a Senate majority in 2014. That's 3 solid years of nominations including the aforementioned, highly influential DC court.

 

[michal1980]

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.
.

They caved. They should have went nuclear when they were in power and stuffed the courts.

It is an assault on minority rights. But I knew then, that democrats no matter what they say (Reid, Obama, all against the nuclear option before) they will pull shit like this.

Republicans are never smart and or bold enough to pull stunts like this, and always get out maneuvered by democrats.

Which is why they should now employee the Reid strategy .

Senate Democrats threatened Tuesday to block virtually all business in that chamber if the Republican majority carried out a plan to unilaterally impose rule changes that would ensure confirmation of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominations.

The threat, issued by Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), sharply escalated a partisan disagreement that could put the brakes on an array of legislative business in the upper chamber, where Democrats used the threat of a filibuster to block votes on 10 appellate court nominees last year.

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

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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?

That's still not the point though. It's not about "wanting" anything. It's about creating a tool which can (and will) be used by the dominant party to further its control. When one lot of nitwits and their backers are in power the goal WILL BE to undo whatever was done before and stack the deck as much in their favor to make it last. Then the other bunch of dildos get in office their supporters will "right all the wrongs" and do the same thing, creating a perpetual state of tearing down and redoing.

This is probably how the Moties got started.

 

[michal1980]

Wow, those are some scary numbers for Repubs, especially if they (very likely) miss out on a Senate majority in 2014. That's 3 solid years of nominations including the aforementioned, highly influential DC court.

It just shows you the dishonest of the dems. They wanted this all the along. They want to stuff the courts with radicals. They can't pass their legislation because its too radical, so they have to use the courts.

 

[Fern]

I wonder if this will be challenged in court. There's too much chaff when googling for the Senate rules changes (too many articles on this cloture rule change), but I did find this:

Depending on the number of all 100 senators "duly chosen and sworn" who are actually "present and voting", an amendment (change) to U.S. Senate Rule XXII can be difficult. Paragraph 2 of said rule states that "to amend the Senate rules...the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." This means 67 senators if all 100 senators are "present and voting", but only 34 senators if under Rule VI, the minimum quorum of 51 senators, i.e., "a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" is "present and voting."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

I.e., how was the vote for this rule change not filibustered by the Repubs and will they take it to court?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

They caved. They should have went nuclear when they were in power and stuffed the courts.

It is an assault on minority rights. But I knew then, that democrats no matter what they say (Reid, Obama, all against the nuclear option before) they will pull shit like this.

Republicans are never smart and or bold enough to pull stunts like this, and always get out maneuvered by democrats.

So for all your complaints about how awful this is, your real anger comes from the fact that the Republicans didn't do it first.

Which is why they should now employee the Reid strategy .

You realize one of the reasons why Democrats felt free to do this is that the Republicans already filibuster and obstruct Senate business to such a huge extent that there really isn't much more then can do. It's kind of an empty threat.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder if this will be challenged in court. There's too much chaff when googling for the Senate rules changes (too many articles on this cloture rule change), but I did find this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

I.e., how was the vote for this rule change not filibustered by the Repubs and will they take it to court?

Fern

They will not take it to court and even if they do the courts will almost certainly immediately throw out the case.

The courts almost never attempt to interfere with how the House and Senate make their internal rules. There's a good argument that were the courts to attempt to do so that would actually be unconstitutional.

 

[michal1980]

So for all your complaints about how awful this is, your real anger comes from the fact that the Republicans didn't do it first.



You realize one of the reasons why Democrats felt free to do this is that the Republicans already filibuster and obstruct Senate business to such a huge extent that there really isn't much more then can do. It's kind of an empty threat.

They can always go further.

My anger comes from the fact that when Dem's started the filibuster strategy republicans thought about the nuclear option they backed away.

Then a few years later, the same dems, exactly the same. Reid, Obama, etc etc. that a few years ago were so against the nuclear option because they were the minority, just blew the senate up.


Outside of this helping the radical judicial left wing agenda, how will this help anything move along in the senate?

 

[michal1980]

as expected the nightly news barely covered this

 

[fskimospy]

They can always go further.

My anger comes from the fact that when Dem's started the filibuster strategy republicans thought about the nuclear option they backed away.

Then a few years later, the same dems, exactly the same. Reid, Obama, etc etc. that a few years ago were so against the nuclear option because they were the minority, just blew the senate up.

Outside of this helping the radical judicial left wing agenda, how will this help anything move along in the senate?

It's really unclear if they can go much further. You may not realize the massive scale of obstruction that has been going on for the last few years. Like I said, it's basically a toothless threat because they've been basically doing it already. Again though, you're mad that the Republicans didn't do it first. That's sad.

"Radical judicial left wing agenda"? Please. Go look at the records of the nominees Obama was putting up for the DC circuit. But otherwise yes, this will allow the Democrats to staff the government much much more quickly than they could before, enormously speeding up the work of the Senate. It's a really huge plus.

 

[fskimospy]

as expected the nightly news barely covered this

It's currently on the front page of the NY Times, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, etc, etc.

It takes a pretty huge amount of delusion into the myth of the liberal media to declare that the news media is downplaying the story that is on the front page of basically every news site.

 

[werepossum]

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

Oh, without a doubt, but not for benefit of country over party.

I wonder if this will be challenged in court. There's too much chaff when googling for the Senate rules changes (too many articles on this cloture rule change), but I did find this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

I.e., how was the vote for this rule change not filibustered by the Repubs and will they take it to court?

Fern

Not a problem. The Senate Dems just wait until Obama does something particularly egregious, then while all the Republicans are waiting for their turns at the FoxNews microphones the Democrats run in and do a quickie session. It's not like ethics or morality are constraining either party.

 

[fskimospy]

There could be a silver lining in this for some conservatives, btw. You know how you guys always want Obama to fire Eric Holder, or Katherine Sibelius, etc? Well one of the reasons Obama would never fire them is that confirming a replacement would have been a nightmare. Now this isnt true.

 

[trenchfoot]

In essence: Repub Wall of Obstruction, meet Dem Wrecking Ball of Frustration.

 

[boomerang]

What goes around, comes around.

 

[shira]

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?

THIS is what changed:

Notice the HUGE increase in the use of the filibuster since Republicans came to control more than 40 seats in the Senate.

 

[michal1980]

It's currently on the front page of the NY Times, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, etc, etc.

It takes a pretty huge amount of delusion into the myth of the liberal media to declare that the news media is downplaying the story that is on the front page of basically every news site.

I watched ABC, NBC, CBS. the 6:30 nightly news. The story was covered but barely. Kenndy being freed, and the plane landing in the wrong spot got the same if not more coverage.

CBS was disgustedly pro democrats

 

[Brainonska511]

I wonder if anything interesting would pop up in the search if we search for 2005 threads about the reverse situation, where Democrats were filibustering Bush nominations...

 

[loganone]

In essence: Repub Wall of Obstruction, meet Dem Wrecking Ball of Frustration.

What an ironically appropriate analogy. Democrats are certainly doing a fine job wrecking everything they touch lately.

 

[michal1980]

It's really unclear if they can go much further. You may not realize the massive scale of obstruction that has been going on for the last few years. Like I said, it's basically a toothless threat because they've been basically doing it already. Again though, you're mad that the Republicans didn't do it first. That's sad.

"Radical judicial left wing agenda"? Please. Go look at the records of the nominees Obama was putting up for the DC circuit. But otherwise yes, this will allow the Democrats to staff the government much much more quickly than they could before, enormously speeding up the work of the Senate. It's a really huge plus.

Your happy the dem's did it first. That's sad.

now that there is no more filibuster.

Do you expect Obamas nominees to be
a) Moderate
b) radical liberal nut jobs.

The only reason presidents moderate their appointments is because of filibuster. This will just further radicalization America.

Reid was right, this will destroy the USA. Judges will made from greater extremes each administration. The supreme court will become more and more powerful. Congress more and more divided, and weaker.

 

[fskimospy]

I watched ABC, NBC, CBS. the 6:30 nightly news. The story was covered but barely. Kenndy being freed, and the plane landing in the wrong spot got the same if not more coverage.

CBS was disgustedly pro democrats

Wow, you watched three news broadcasts simultaneously. That's impressive. I like how you note that it was covered, but now you think it wasn't covered enough.

When people rely on an article of faith like those who believe in the myth of the liberal media there isn't much that evidence can do to shake that belief.

 

[fskimospy]

Your happy the dem's did it first. That's sad.

now that there is no more filibuster.

Do you expect Obamas nominees to be
a) Moderate
b) radical liberal nut jobs.

The only reason presidents moderate their appointments is because of filibuster. This will just further radicalization America.

Reid was right, this will destroy the USA. Judges will made from greater extremes each administration. The supreme court will become more and more powerful. Congress more and more divided, and weaker.

I'm happy that someone did it as the overuse of the filibuster was damaging the country. Again though, you have all these bad consequences that you feel are there but you are mad that the Republicans didn't do this. The incoherence is baffling.

I expect Obama's nominees to be generally the same moderates that he's appointed for his whole presidency but I'm sure there will be a few more liberal judges that get on the bench. I view this as a good thing.

The idea that presidents only moderate their appointments due to the filibuster is ridiculous and obviously false. The filibuster was almost never used for judges until recently, yet the judiciary wasn't filled with ideologues.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm not happy we're moving into uncharted waters but all politicians will adapt. At bare minimum they will have to explain to voters why they are unhappy with appointments.

 

[TerryMathews]

Wow, you watched three news broadcasts simultaneously.

Dont they have DVRs in fantasy land?

 

[First]

lol @ michael