NUCLEAR OPTION TRIGGERED: Dems Make Historic Change To Filibuster Rules

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Nov 21, 2013 5:48 PM GMT
    NUCLEAR OPTION TRIGGERED: Dems Make Historic Change To Filibuster Rules


    invoke first major change to the Senate filibuster rules since 1975

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-nuclear-option-senate
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 6:37 PM GMT
    This could be short sighted, they will be sorry if/when the majority changes hands.
  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Nov 21, 2013 7:47 PM GMT
    1424433_10152018564674255_239881052_n.pn
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 8:26 PM GMT
    The "Party of No" got exactly what they were asking for. Now let them stew in it.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 21, 2013 8:29 PM GMT
    Good! It's about time.icon_smile.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 21, 2013 8:31 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThis could be short sighted, they will be sorry if/when the majority changes hands.

    The GOP will have to change before a republican can win a national election. They simply exclude too many people, and they are obstructionists.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 9:05 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidGood! It's about time.icon_smile.gif

    Agreed. A minority obstructing the will of the majority in a legislative body is not democracy, it's thuggery.

    When HALF of ALL the filibusters to block Presidential nominations in the ENTIRE 225-YEAR HISTORY of the United States Senate were during the 5 YEARS of the Obama Presidency it's clear that Senate Republicans were abusing the practice. Democrats did not choose to end these filibuster rules, it was Republican abuse that caused it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 9:09 PM GMT
    "The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.

    For federal appeals court nominees, President George W. Bush saw 35 of his 52 nominees confirmed, and, so far, 30 of Mr. Obama’s 42 nominees have been confirmed. Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all saw significantly higher confirmation rates for their appeals court nominees.

    Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more than six months."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 9:27 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said"The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.

    For federal appeals court nominees, President George W. Bush saw 35 of his 52 nominees confirmed, and, so far, 30 of Mr. Obama’s 42 nominees have been confirmed. Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all saw significantly higher confirmation rates for their appeals court nominees.

    Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more than six months."

    Now include all Presidential nominations in that statistic, to all Federal positions, not just the Federal Courts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 9:33 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThis could be short sighted, they will be sorry if/when the majority changes hands.


    We don't need gridlock no matter which party controls the Senate.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2936

    Nov 21, 2013 11:14 PM GMT
    Lifter4ever said
    Blakes7 saidThis could be short sighted, they will be sorry if/when the majority changes hands.


    We don't need gridlock no matter which party controls the Senate.


    This!

    It's a return to democracy - at last.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 11:30 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said"The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.

    For federal appeals court nominees, President George W. Bush saw 35 of his 52 nominees confirmed, and, so far, 30 of Mr. Obama’s 42 nominees have been confirmed. Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all saw significantly higher confirmation rates for their appeals court nominees.

    Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more than six months."

    Now include all Presidential nominations in that statistic, to all Federal positions, not just the Federal Courts.


    Scroll up. Metta 8 already did that.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Nov 22, 2013 2:24 AM GMT
    HottJoe saidGood! It's about time.icon_smile.gif


    They need to expand this to legislation, not just executive nominees. But this is about time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 2:44 AM GMT
    But what happens when the opposite party is in power???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 2:51 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidBut what happens when the opposite party is in power???


    The opposite party will then find it has the power to get work done without the BS, belligerence and obstructionism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 3:13 AM GMT
    And then the left will jump up and down, screeching and crying about what "gets done".

    And difficulty is the point of checks and balances. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3521

    Nov 22, 2013 3:37 AM GMT
    perhaps the filibuster should just COST more...to show they are serious...as in, you only get to fillibuster once...and at the end the representative is now RETIRED (permanently) from being in power.

    if you feel so strongly that you are going to waste everyone's time and never negotiate or work things out so that government works..you should be willing to die for the cause like any footsoldier.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 5:12 AM GMT
    Aristoshark saidYou should see the comments on Lindsey Graham's Facebook page. The rightists are screaming that the Constitution is being subverted. Thing is, the filibuster isn't IN the Constitution. It didn't exist before 1853. Once again, they shriek about how the love the Constitution and they have no fucking idea what is or isn't in it.


    If Miss Graham has her knickers in a twist, it's a good thing.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11822

    Nov 22, 2013 5:54 AM GMT
    Senator Reid grew nuts..The republicans think no action will get them wins in 2014. A lot of republican's have admitted they have voted against acceptable candidates for cabinet, and in judicial vacancies at cost to President Obama's integrity.Second, our country was founded by major rules, and now the republican want to bitch and say this filibuster limits there voice..Voice? What voice?..Inaction and lies are they're voice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 11:03 PM GMT
    from Joe.My.God:

    PART ONE:


    Today In Liberty Counsel Hypocrisy

    "Today’s action by Harry Reid is frightening, and every freedom-loving American should be deeply concerned. Not only is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considered a launching pad to the Supreme Court, this circuit court hears constitutional challenges to executive rules and regulations. President Obama has been issuing ‘fixes’ and using ‘enforcement discretion’ to roll out his tyrannical overreach into healthcare. Now he is trying to stack the court that would rule on his unconstitutional executive orders. One thing is clear, today’s change in Senate rules is about packing the D.C. Circuit with liberal ideologues that will transform it into a rubber stamp for anything the President wants." - Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver, in a press release issued yesterday.

    And now...we go back in time.

    "Liberty Counsel, as part of the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters, recently signed a letter urging the the U.S. Senate leadership 'to end the judicial filibusters at the earliest possible moment and well before a Supreme Court vacancy should occur.' The letter also pointed out that 'while it is the right of the President to expect the Senate to give Advice and Consent within a reasonable period of time, it is the duty of every Senator to offer Advice and Consent through an honest, up or down vote.' A number of Republican senators still remain opposed or undecided on the issue. We have compiled a list you can use to call the Senators and ask them to end the judicial filibusters."- Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver, in a press release issued April 5th, 2005.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 11:08 PM GMT
    from Joe.My.God

    PART TWO:


    Today In FRC Hypocrisy

    "Democrats used a parliamentary trick to change the Senate rules and strip the minority of the little power they had. In doing so, they blew up a 225-year-old process and cleared the way for a simple majority to rubber stamp the President's outrageous nominees. Instead of requiring 60 votes to end debate on a nomination, liberals lowered the threshold to 51 -- virtually guaranteeing the majority party a blank check to confirm anyone they want, regardless of how extreme or unqualified. In the short term, it will help consolidate more power for Democrats, silence conservatives, and end what little negotiating the Senate does. Of course, Senator Reid is only in favor of rewriting the rules when it suits his purposes. Apparently, the Majority Leader lives by the same creed as the President: if you don't like the law, break it." - Hate group leader Tony Perkins, via email.

    And now...we go back in time.

    "Partisan special interests have threatened judicial independence again by inserting ideology into the Senate confirmation process of federal judges. Now the Minority has changed 215 years of Senate tradition by abusing the filibuster for the first time against nominees with clear majority support. The Senate must act as steward of the federal courts by returning the power to confirm judges to the Constitution’s simple majority requirement. The unprecedented abuse of the filibuster is a device intended to undermine the prerogatives of the Presidency as well as the tradition of the Senate. It must not stand." - Hate group leader Tony Perkins, in an open letter to the US Senate dated April 4th, 2005.

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Nov 22, 2013 11:12 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidThe "Party of No" got exactly what they were asking for. Now let them stew in it.




    I quite agree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 11:14 PM GMT
    ...and that's the beauty of the internet. Those contradicting themselves get caught, Mr Shaver and Mr Perkins. icon_lol.gif