Conservatives To GOP Leaders: Don’t You Dare Reverse The Nuclear Option

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

    Nov 05, 2014 5:32 PM GMT

    “The decision by Senator Reid and his Democratic colleagues to deploy the so-called ‘nuclear option’ was transparently designed to facilitate the confirmation of judicial nominees who would insulate Obamacare and other aspects of President Obama’s agenda from meaningful judicial review,” the letter reads. “Regardless of their motives, we see very little upside and significant downside in reviving the judicial filibuster.”

    In 2013, Senate Democrats — led by Reid, the Senate majority leader — took the drastic step of changing the body’s rules to prevent the minority party from being able to filibuster most of the president’s nominees.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 5:38 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 5:39 PM GMT
    And accompanying discussion here of the usual liberals who supported the Democrats in this change:
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 6:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidYep, let's keep Dirty Harry Reid's rules in place. icon_wink.gif

    It would be just...
  • muscleboundfe...

    Posts: 392

    Nov 05, 2014 6:24 PM GMT
    lol you actually think they would.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 7:22 PM GMT
    muscleboundfem saidlol you actually think they would.

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

    Nov 06, 2014 8:01 PM GMT
    Apparently bipartisanship is only absolutely "time" when you're in the minority...

    The nuclear option allowed President Obama and his allies to reshape the judicial branch dramatically to suit their far-left agenda. And the Democrats were not shy in boasting of their achievement. This summer, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the administration’s efforts to extend subsidies to the federal ObamaCare exchange—in clear violation of the plain words of the Affordable Care Act and the stated intent of its architects—the newly minted majority of Democratic appointees on that court voted to rehear the case “en banc.” Sen. Reid announced that the “simple math” of the D.C. Circuit’s new majority of Democratic-appointed judges would serve to “vindicate” Democrats’ use of the nuclear option, presumably by preserving the administration’s signature legislative achievement.

    Similar effects are seen throughout the federal courts. As the New York Times reported on Sept. 13, “judges appointed by Democratic presidents” now “considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents,” and that “advantage has only grown since late last year when [Democrats] stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.” Liberal legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin declared in the Oct. 27 New Yorker magazine that the nuclear option’s sudden transformation of the federal judiciary has “cemented Obama’s judicial legacy.”

    It will fall to the next Republican president to counteract President Obama’s aggressive efforts to stack the federal courts in favor of his party’s ideological agenda. But achieving such balance would be made all the more difficult—if not impossible—if Republicans choose to reinstate the previous filibuster rule now that the damage to the nation’s judiciary has already been done.

    To restore the rule now, after Mr. Obama has installed his controversial judges, would cement a partisan double standard: When Democrats control the White House and Senate, judicial nominations need only 50 votes; but when Republicans control both, judicial nominations require 60 votes, allowing Democratic minorities to block Republican nominations.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2478

    Nov 08, 2014 2:11 PM GMT
    Republicans won't reverse the rule change because they will see others Repubs oppose them in primaries in 2016 if they do. That is being communicated to them very clearly early on so they do not become -- in their minds -- invincible "Big Heads."