Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[Trajan]

Let me help you. 60 votes. So, like your example of LBJ, apparently Obama got that legislation passed in a way you consider admirable.

lol. You should remind us you feel that way more often.

how many votes from republicans you imbecile...

I said;

LBJ had a filibuster ( under the old rules to- 3/5ths) when he introduced Medicare....but what did he do? he worked his ass off for consensus, and he had a huuuge house majority too

jesus wept

Medicare passed the Senate 68 - 29 after 3 days of debate.

I know that you nitwit, the POINT is in his gaining consensus from the gop, when he didn't need them.... I know he had huge majorities...I said that, wtf are you hallucinating

 

[Sallow]

How many votes did Obama get for Obamacare?

Let me help you. 60 votes. So, like your example of LBJ, apparently Obama got that legislation passed in a way you consider admirable.

lol. You should remind us you feel that way more often.

how many votes from republicans you imbecile...

I said;

LBJ had a filibuster ( under the old rules to- 3/5ths) when he introduced Medicare....but what did he do? he worked his ass off for consensus, and he had a huuuge house majority too

jesus wept

Holy crap.

You seriously don't know how LBJ operated.

 

[Zander]

This is bad policy and bad politics. Period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

how many votes from republicans you imbecile...

I said;

LBJ had a filibuster ( under the old rules to- 3/5ths) when he introduced Medicare....but what did he do? he worked his ass off for consensus, and he had a huuuge house majority too

jesus wept

Medicare passed the Senate 68 - 29 after 3 days of debate.

I know that you nitwit, the POINT is in his gaining consensus from the gop, when he didn't need them.... I know he had huge majorities...I said that, wtf are you hallucinating

Hey, enough about me. Let's talk about you for a bit, as in this bit:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/4627441-post368.html

where you proclaim your long held opposition to the filibustering of judicial appointments.

Funny thing about messageboards. They actually record what people say, and save it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mitch could have let Obama have 3 judges, now he can have 93 with just Democratic votes .. dumb move. <my comment.

Daily Kos: Senate GOP blows itself up. What the hell were they thinking?

True, today's deal preserved the existing filibuster rule, but it really didn't. Democrats established that they could bust through any filibuster with a simple majority anytime they wanted. Sure, it's still a process to do so, full of blustery threats and hyperbolic doomsaying, but it's a process [...]
But if Republicans continue to prevent up-or-down votes on further administration officials, or perhaps more importantly, judicial ones, Democrats now have a tool to force action. And that means we've come a long way from a few years ago, when Senate Democrats simply shrugged at the inevitability of the GOP filibuster arguing they had no other option.

I must admit, I didn't expect Republicans to challenge this notion this quickly. And the reason is simple: Even with a truncated and compromised filibuster, Republicans were able to gum up the works to unprecedented levels. As Bill Sher at the Campaign for America's Future notes, the federal judiciary is now evenly balanced, with 390 GOP-appointed judges and 391 Democratic-appointed ones. However, there are 93 vacancies.
<more>

He had that power last week, he just didn't use it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both sides are going to point fingers, but the voters are going to have their say next year, and I think the extremists on both sides are going to get roundly sacked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Both sides are going to point fingers, but the voters are going to have their say next year, and I think the extremists on both sides are going to get roundly sacked.

Reid showed which side has the most extremists.

 

[Trajan]

Medicare passed the Senate 68 - 29 after 3 days of debate.

I know that you nitwit, the POINT is in his gaining consensus from the gop, when he didn't need them.... I know he had huge majorities...I said that, wtf are you hallucinating

Hey, enough about me. Let's talk about you for a bit, as in this bit:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/4627441-post368.html

where you proclaim your long held opposition to the filibustering of judicial appointments.

Funny thing about messageboards. They actually record what people say, and save it.

and???????????

I don't sppt. them for anyone, but, I do sppt. the rules, you cannot figure that out?

nor do I sppt. 'Holds' on nominees etc. gee I must have said this, what 10 times? I'll say it tomorrow again if you like.... did you catch the part about elections

 

[Trajan]

Let me help you. 60 votes. So, like your example of LBJ, apparently Obama got that legislation passed in a way you consider admirable.

lol. You should remind us you feel that way more often.

how many votes from republicans you imbecile...

I said;

LBJ had a filibuster ( under the old rules to- 3/5ths) when he introduced Medicare....but what did he do? he worked his ass off for consensus, and he had a huuuge house majority too

jesus wept

Holy crap.

You seriously don't know how LBJ operated.

Holy crap I bet I have read more about him than you have

.....he got almost half the gop caucus in the senate by the usual; cajolery, arm twisting, glad handing, back handing, bribing and conning.....anything else?

 

[Trajan]

The use of the fillibuster was also unprecedented during the 108th congress regarding judicial appointment. But back then Reid was staunchly against the nuclear option. So what changed? It certainly wasn't the precedent set on fillibusters, since that was done under the 108th and has escalated since.

So, while we're being hypocritical as a daily routine, can we try being honest for a change?

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

Filibuster was a quaint Senate custom requiring holding the floor of the Senate nonstop.
Then it evolved to where you didn't have to actually talk, you just had to declare a filibuster
Then it evolved to where EVERY bill and appointment required 60 votes
It has now evolved to where you only need 51 votes for appointments
We need to evolve once again to end filibuster forever

Riiiiight... thats what harry reid told the wash post, his position vis a vis 2005 had evolved, he got that slimy opportunistic horsecrap from obamas stance on gay marriage


do you know why there are so many filibusters on judges and on legislation?

 

[TemplarKormac]

you are suffering a critical thinking fail, first if you guys had not started this shooting war we wouldn't be here.

my position is not germane in this context; the rule was 60 to close debate, if that means debate on a nominee, well, that was the rule. You guys and obama too, screamed like we are now back in 05 when Frist surfaced this shit, so please spare me the BS.

and you must have missed this;

just because YOU think something is right, or wrong, doesn't make it so, nor does it make me right or wrong, thats why we have LAW(s)...see how that works?



and, I don't need a lesson in house or senate history from you of all people.



LBJ had a filibuster ( under the old rules to- 3/5ths) when he introduced Medicare....but what did he do? he worked his ass of for consensus, and he had a huuuge house majority too.....what do we have? might makes right...zero for obamacare and reid deciding hes got to have all the power, by breaking a 200 year dictum submaring the minority...



man, you proggies sure do love monitories except when you need to kick them in the teeth to forward an ideological platform. what happened to the love?

In 2005 you rightwing morons were all FOR getting rid of the filibuster.

Jesus Christ stop drinking and posting ....


so the guy who doesn't shoot gets prosecuted for murder?

the guy how shoots and kills? whats he get?

A presidential pardon.

 

[Dot Com]

Irrelevant. That was before the GOP considered it treasonous to work w/ the President of the opposing party

how many votes from republicans you imbecile...

I said;

LBJ had a filibuster ( under the old rules to- 3/5ths) when he introduced Medicare....but what did he do? he worked his ass off for consensus, and he had a huuuge house majority too

jesus wept

Holy crap.

You seriously don't know how LBJ operated.

Holy crap I bet I have read more about him than you have

.....he got almost half the gop caucus in the senate by the usual; cajolery, arm twisting, glad handing, back handing, bribing and conning.....anything else?

 

[P@triot]

So your position is that no judges should get appointed unless the President's party has 60 Senators.

That's almost as ignorant.

Are you aware that the Republican Party has not had 60 Senators since the 1920's?

No stupid - the position is the president should simply nominate a rational, qualified individual instead of a partisan hack!!! And then both sides would approve with the proper votes.

You see how that works, stupid?!?

That doesn't make any sense. Was that your intention? If so, well done.

It "doesn't make any sense" that the president should nominate a rational, qualified, individual who both sides would approve of over all? Really?

What doesn't make sense about that [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]? Basically I just bent you over with facts and left you without a rational response - so you went off the deep end with a nonsensical question here. You didn't know where to go with your narrative once you couldn't blame Republicans...

 

[P@triot]

So your position is that no judges should get appointed unless the President's party has 60 Senators.

That's almost as ignorant.

Are you aware that the Republican Party has not had 60 Senators since the 1920's?

No stupid - the position is the president should simply nominate a rational, qualified individual instead of a partisan hack!!! And then both sides would approve with the proper votes.

You see how that works, stupid?!?

If you can prove that every filibustered Obama appointee is a partisan hack, by all means do so.

Step one, tell us who gets to decide who is or isn't a partisan hack.

Step one - the Senators elected to do so.... (seriously - are you drunk and high right now because you sound like a special kind of stupid right now).

The people elected and empowered to cast the votes would make that decision (just like they have for the past 235 years ).

 

[auditor0007]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

 

[rightwinger]

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

Filibuster was a quaint Senate custom requiring holding the floor of the Senate nonstop.
Then it evolved to where you didn't have to actually talk, you just had to declare a filibuster
Then it evolved to where EVERY bill and appointment required 60 votes
It has now evolved to where you only need 51 votes for appointments
We need to evolve once again to end filibuster forever

Riiiiight... thats what harry reid told the wash post, his position vis a vis 2005 had evolved, he got that slimy opportunistic horsecrap from obamas stance on gay marriage


do you know why there are so many filibusters on judges and on legislation?

2005 is not 2013

Filibuster has gotten out of hand and 60 votes should not be required for the Senate to do business. The Senate is gridlocked and nothing can be accomplished. The filibuster is to blame

End the archaic practice

 

[Seawytch]

&#8220;In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominees. Half of them have occurred during the Obama administration &#8212; during the last four and a half years,&#8221;

 

[JoeB131]

Next year when the GOP takes the senate they can do the same thing.

Well, no, actually, they really can't.

Because the president still makes the appointments. If they had the majority, they could defeat these guys in up or down votes, and filibuster would be unnecessary.

 

[paperview]

I like the graph better.

 

[P@triot]

Filibuster was a quaint Senate custom requiring holding the floor of the Senate nonstop.
Then it evolved to where you didn't have to actually talk, you just had to declare a filibuster
Then it evolved to where EVERY bill and appointment required 60 votes
It has now evolved to where you only need 51 votes for appointments
We need to evolve once again to end filibuster forever

Riiiiight... thats what harry reid told the wash post, his position vis a vis 2005 had evolved, he got that slimy opportunistic horsecrap from obamas stance on gay marriage

do you know why there are so many filibusters on judges and on legislation?

2005 is not 2013

Filibuster has gotten out of hand and 60 votes should not be required for the Senate to do business. The Senate is gridlocked and nothing can be accomplished. The filibuster is to blame

End the archaic practice

What you parasites - hungry for government handouts - call "gridlock" normal people call democracy.